| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-01 22:46:36 | Re: INET operators and NOT |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-01 22:23:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: INET operators and NOT |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-01 22:46:36 | Re: INET operators and NOT |
| Previous Message | Keith Parks | 2000-06-01 22:32:13 | Re: Problems with recent CVS versions and Solaris. |