| From: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2018-03-21 10:22:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAE2gYzzK=mE6ya+SzG=8TV1Bg6nK1RmPn36-BL0OYGhdYMuA4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
I am not sure if we are covering the case when clause_const and
pred_const are both NULL. In this case, we should be able to return
true only by checking op_strict(pred_op) or maybe even without
checking that. Am I mistaken?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski | 2018-03-21 11:30:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-03-21 10:10:27 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12.2 |