Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules
Date
Msg-id 16943.918491660@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules
List pgsql-hackers
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>     I've only noticed while browsing through the code why he  did
>     comment  out  those things. He's comparing memoy addresses of
>     nodes, what doesn't work any more after copyObject(). If he's
>     not available right now, we must fix that part.

Is there more to do than using equal() instead of a plain pointer
compare?

There might be --- for example the collapsing-UNION problem I mentioned
yesterday is a case where using equal() allows an overly aggressive
optimization.  Where are these comparisons and what are they for?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oops, I seem to have changed UNION's behavior
Next
From: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM ANALYZE problem on linux