| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2018-03-14 08:21:57 |
| Message-ID: | 5792a3d2-26a5-92c5-35b2-16e813b3f8c2@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/03/14 17:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/03/10 13:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I think it'd make more sense to see about incorporating that idea in
>>> predicate_implied_by_simple_clause/predicate_refuted_by_simple_clause.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Thanks for the patch. I agree it handles the case I presented my patch
> for in a more principled manner. So, I've marked the CF entry for my
> patch as Rejected.
Oops, sorry I hadn't actually seen the CF entry before hitting send on
this email. Seeing that Tom intends to attach his patch with this CF
entry, I will leave the entry alone for now.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-03-14 08:25:44 | Re: inserts into partitioned table may cause crash |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-03-14 08:16:38 | Re: constraint exclusion and nulls in IN (..) clause |