From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniele Orlandi <daniele(at)orlandi(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimizer & boolean syntax |
Date: | 2002-11-22 02:50:55 |
Message-ID: | 19807.1037933455@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniele Orlandi <daniele(at)orlandi(dot)com> writes:
> The problem is the opposite... so, effectively, seems that the optimizer
> considers "monitored" and "monitored=true" as two different expressions...
Check.
> The viceversa is analog and we also can see that the syntax "monitored
> is true" is considered different from the other two syntaxes:
As it should be.
> What I propose is that all those syntaxes are made equivalent
Only two of them are logically equivalent. Consider NULL.
Even for the first two, assuming equivalence requires hard-wiring an
assumption about the behavior of the "bool = bool" operator; which is
a user-redefinable operator. I'm not totally comfortable with the idea.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Samuel A Horwitz | 2002-11-22 02:59:04 | re [ANNOUNCE] RC1 Packaged for Testing ... AIX 4.2.1 result |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-11-22 02:26:35 | bug in pg_dumpall 7.3 |