| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: constraint exclusion and nulls in IN (..) clause |
| Date: | 2018-02-06 21:10:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobBaHs1vuOTk5Wyu_=_zywLPPHhcM5FAEKncTYzGoqdZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Yeah, the patch in its current form is wrong, because it will give wrong
>> answers if the operator being used in a SAOP is non-strict. I modified
>> the patch to consider operator strictness before doing anything with nulls.
>
> That's fine, but I am not sure whether this fits constraint
> exclusion's charter. Please add this patch to the next commitfest so
> that we can have a better opinion.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable extension of the existing
functionality to me. (I have, at present, no opinion on the patch
itself.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-06 21:14:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-02-06 21:04:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |