Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: INET operators and NOT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomas Cerha <t(dot)cerha(at)sh(dot)cvut(dot)cz>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: INET operators and NOT
Date: 2000-06-01 22:42:28
Message-ID: 28544.959899348@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> What's going on here is that the optimizer is simplifying "NOT x<<y"
>> (network_sub) into "x>>=y" (network_supeq), because the pg_operator
>> entry for << claims that >>= is its negator.  This example demonstrates
>> that that ain't so.
>> 
>> Can anyone comment on whether any of the inet operators are actually the
>> correct negator of << ?  For that matter, are inet's other commutator
>> and negator declarations just as broken?

I did take out the demonstrably incorrect negator links for 7.0.
We still have those other issues about CIDR/INET types though...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-01 22:46:36
Subject: Re: INET operators and NOT
Previous:From: Keith ParksDate: 2000-06-01 22:32:13
Subject: Re: Problems with recent CVS versions and Solaris.

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-01 22:46:36
Subject: Re: INET operators and NOT
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-06-01 22:23:18
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: INET operators and NOT

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group