Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Um, that is what the proposed patch does.
>> I was referring to the first two lines that the patch removes.
>> I guess I don't understand why they should go.
> What we'd have left after the proposed removal is
>
> if (new_path->rows < old_path->rows)
> remove_old = true; /* new dominates old */
> else
> accept_new = false; /* old equals or dominates new */
>
> There's no need to make more than one test on the rows values.
I see, thanks for explaining.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
