On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> wrote:
Joking about "640K" aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a truly enormous query as is generated by the broken forms of this logic to turn out happily. I'd rather fix Slony (as done in the above patch).
Yes, by all means, fix the application, but that doesn't preclude the argument that the database should be a bit more smarter and efficient, especially if it is easy to do.
Agreed, it seems like a fine idea to have the database support such queries, as this eases coping with applications that might be more difficult to get fixed.
Seeing no more objections to it, I am going to add this patch to the commitfest. Attached is updated patch against latest master; it's the same as the previous version, except that that the patch now includes a fix for the failing test case as well.
