From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Testbed for predtest.c ... and some arguable bugs therein |
Date: | 2018-03-08 18:32:56 |
Message-ID: | 20260.1520533976@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that that's worth fixing right now. Instead I'm tempted
>> to revert the addition of the clause_is_check argument to
>> predicate_refuted_by, on the grounds that it's both broken and currently
>> unnecessary.
> Hmm, I think you were the one who pushed for adding that argument in
> the first place: http://postgr.es/m/31878.1497389320@sss.pgh.pa.us
I'm kind of disappointed that you failed to take the *other* advice
in that message, as I still think that clause_is_check is a poor
choice of name for the flag. It could have been salvaged with a
clear comment defining the semantics, but that's not there either.
> I have no problem with taking it back out, although I'm disappointed
> that I failed to find whatever was broken about it during review.
Maybe I'll spend a few minutes trying to isolate why the current
results are wrong. However, it's certainly arguable that we shouldn't
spend much time on this with no use-case in sight.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-08 18:40:19 | disable SSL compression? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-08 18:09:54 | Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound |