Log Message: ----------- Fix equivclass.c's not-quite-right strategy for handling X=X clauses. The original coding correctly noted that these aren't just redundancies (they're effectively X IS NOT NULL, assuming = is strict). However, they got treated that way if X happened to be in a single-member EquivalenceClass already, which could happen if there was an ORDER BY X clause, for instance. The simplest and most reliable solution seems to be to not try to process such clauses through the EquivalenceClass machinery; just throw them back for traditional processing. The amount of work that'd be needed to be smarter than that seems out of proportion to the benefit. Per bug #5084 from Bernt Marius Johnsen, and analysis by Andrew Gierth. Modified Files: -------------- pgsql/src/backend/optimizer: README (r1.51 -> r1.52) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/README?r1=1.51&r2=1.52) pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path: equivclass.c (r1.20 -> r1.21) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c?r1=1.20&r2=1.21) pgsql/src/test/regress/expected: select.out (r1.20 -> r1.21) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/select.out?r1=1.20&r2=1.21) pgsql/src/test/regress/sql: select.sql (r1.15 -> r1.16) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql/select.sql?r1=1.15&r2=1.16)
pgsql-committers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных