Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tom> I'm inclined to think that the best solution is to have
> Tom> process_equivalence just reject any clauses that have equal()
> Tom> left and right sides, ie, throw them back to be processed as
> Tom> ordinary non-equivalence clauses.
> Hmm. Is it ever possible for mergejoinable operators to be non-strict?
> Does that matter?
I'm not sure. ISTR that nodeMergejoin makes some effort to support such
operators, but the btree code doesn't really. In any case, it doesn't
matter. Leaving the clause out of the equivalence machinery is
certainly safe; at worst we'll end up with a redundant test or two in
the final plan.
regards, tom lane
