Thanks for your thoughts.
What is the definition of a merge-joinable condition?
Even if I put ExpTime = Infinity (I saw that one coming ;-)), the same
error is reported. My only option here is to add A.exptime = B.exptime
(which is only true for live data if I use INFINITY), and lose the
ability to query historical data.
Can I create an type/operator that compares both records that is
considered merge-joinable?
Kind regards,
Harco
Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I think the reason it hasn't been done for general join conditions is
because we havn't thought of an efficient algorithm.
Right, it's keeping track of the unmatched right-hand rows that's a
problem.
However, I wonder if youre case couldn't be handled with a
time-interval datatype such that you condition is merge-joinable on
that type. I can't quite see it though...
Interesting thought. The use of NULLs in this example is a pretty poor
representational choice --- the queries would get a lot simpler if you
used "exptime = INFINITY" to represent unexpired data. That doesn't get
you all the way to a mergejoinable query though :-(
