Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlan(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy
Date: 2024-02-18 16:24:59
Message-ID: 3873394.1708273499@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
> IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
> partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.

+1 ... sounds clean and clearly correct.

> I'm tempted to go a bit further in master only and add support for
> bool IS NOT UNKNOWN and bool IS UNKNOWN using the same method.

These are the same as IS NOT NULL and IS NULL, so I don't see the
need for an OR?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2024-02-18 23:49:11 Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy
Previous Message David Rowley 2024-02-18 12:53:29 Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy