Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-03-28 16:41:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Any objection to separating out the have_mappings bit? It wasn't terribly
>> appropriate before, but it seems really out of place in this formulation.
> The patch I sent removed the have_mapping thing entirely? Do you mean it
> should be there, but as a separate query?
Oh, so it did. Well, do you think we need a query checking that?
I hadn't questioned the need to do so, but if you feel it's unnecessary
I'm certainly willing to pull it.
regards, tom lane
