| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: constraint exclusion and nulls in IN (..) clause |
| Date: | 2018-03-20 18:44:26 |
| Message-ID: | 21421.1521571466@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> After further thought, it seems like the place to deal with this is
> really operator_predicate_proof(), as in the attached draft patch
> against HEAD. This passes the smell test for me, in the sense that
> it's an arguably correct and general extension of the proof rules,
> but it could use more testing.
Was anyone planning to do more work or testing on this? Or should
I just push it so we can close the CF entry?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-20 18:50:38 | Re: configure's checks for --enable-tap-tests are insufficient |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2018-03-20 18:41:15 | Re: [HACKERS] per-sesson errors after interrupting CLUSTER pg_attribute (not attrdef) |