From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Date: | 2024-10-07 16:02:10 |
Message-ID: | 1663644.1728316930@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> To be clear, I don't think that it's essential that we have equivalent
> behavior in those cases where the patch applies its transformations. I
> have no objections to committing the patch without any handling for
> that.
Oy. I don't agree with that *at all*. An "optimization" that changes
query semantics is going to be widely seen as a bug.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-10-07 16:02:35 | Re: On disable_cost |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-10-07 15:58:54 | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |