Re: Teach predtest about IS [NOT] <boolean> proofs

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > [ v6 patchset ]
>
> I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review
>
> statements; my bad). I also added the changes in test_predtest.c from
> 0002. I attach a rebased version of 0002, as well as 0003 which isn't
> changed, mainly to keep the cfbot happy.
>
> I'm still not happy with what you did in predicate_refuted_by_recurse:
> it feels wrong and rather expensively so. There has to be a better
> way. Maybe strong vs. weak isn't quite the right formulation for
> refutation tests?

Possibly. Earlier I'd mused that:

> Alternatively (to avoid unnecessary CPU burn) we could modify
> predicate_implied_by_recurse (and functionals called by it) to have a
> argument beyond "weak = true/false" Ie.g., an enum that allows for
> something like "WEAK", "STRONG", and "EITHER". That's a bigger change,
> so I didn't want to do that right away unless there was agreement on
> that direction.

I'm going to try implementing that and see how I feel about what it
looks like in practice.

Regards,
James Coleman