Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>     I've only noticed while browsing through the code why he  did
>     comment  out  those things. He's comparing memoy addresses of
>     nodes, what doesn't work any more after copyObject(). If he's
>     not available right now, we must fix that part.

Is there more to do than using equal() instead of a plain pointer
compare?

There might be --- for example the collapsing-UNION problem I mentioned
yesterday is a case where using equal() allows an overly aggressive
optimization.  Where are these comparisons and what are they for?
        regards, tom lane