On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Mmm, I like that. Putting that bunch of hairy logic in a subroutine
>> instead of repeating it in several places definitely seems better. I
>> don't really like the name "clause_matches_join", though. It's more
>> like "clause has well-defined sides, and mark which is which as a
>> side-effect".
>
> It was the first thing that came to mind ... got a better idea?
clause_has_well_defined_sides()?
...Robert
