Re: remove_useless_joins vs. bug #19560 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tender Wang
Subject Re: remove_useless_joins vs. bug #19560
Date
Msg-id CAHewXNnOCHC=uj7gaUfiOww_gmoqvg=JtrxrVkDNfCnJ36wh6w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: remove_useless_joins vs. bug #19560  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Tom,

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 于2026年7月28日周二 20:24写道:
>
> Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think this issue is still worth fixing. The discussion in [1] has
> > been inactive for about two months, so I wanted to ask whether you
> > intend to address it as part of the analyzejoins.c rewrite, or whether
> > it would be better for me to resume work on [1] once the rewrite has
> > been committed.
>
> I disagree.  That's not a bug -- okay, it's a missed optimization for
> a small class of poorly-written queries -- and it's not specific to
> SJE either.  I think far too much development effort has been spent
> on the point already.  See my upthread reply to Richard [1].
>

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not sure why I couldn't see your reply to Richard in my Gmail
inbox, although I can see it on the pgsql-hackers archive.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, and sorry for raising a point
that had already been discussed.


--
Thanks,
Tender Wang



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shlok Kyal
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER / ... CONNECTION with broken old server
Next
From: "Greg Burd"
Date:
Subject: Don't use __builtin_setjmp on aarch64 MinGW/Windows