| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergey Shinderuk <s(dot)shinderuk(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <drowley(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in row_number() optimization |
| Date: | 2022-11-25 16:19:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4059995.1669393149@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sergey Shinderuk <s(dot)shinderuk(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> What about user-defined operators? I created my own <= operator for int8
> which returns true on null input, and put it in a btree operator class.
> Admittedly, it's weird that (null <= 1) evaluates to true. But does it
> violate the contract of the btree operator class or something? Didn't
> find a clear answer in the docs.
It's pretty unlikely that this would work during an actual index scan.
I'm fairly sure that btree (and other index AMs) have hard-wired
assumptions that index operators are strict.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ted Yu | 2022-11-25 16:22:58 | Re: checking rd_rules in RelationBuildDesc |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-25 16:17:10 | Re: checking rd_rules in RelationBuildDesc |