Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Mmm, I like that. Putting that bunch of hairy logic in a subroutine
> instead of repeating it in several places definitely seems better. I
> don't really like the name "clause_matches_join", though. It's more
> like "clause has well-defined sides, and mark which is which as a
> side-effect".
It was the first thing that came to mind ... got a better idea?
regards, tom lane