|From:||James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Proving IS NOT NULL inference for ScalarArrayOpExpr's|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
> > This comment seems wrong:
> > + * However weak implication fails: e.g., "NULL IS NOT NULL" is false, but
> > + * "NULL = ANY(ARRAY[NULL])" is NULL, so non-falsity does not imply non-falsity.
> > "non-falsity does not imply non-falsity"? I suppose one of those
> > negations should be different ...
> Earlier in the file weak implication (comments above
> predicate_implied_by) is defined as "non-falsity of A implies
> non-falsity of B". In this example we have NULL for A (non-false) but
> false for B, so that definition doesn't hold. So I think the comment
> is accurate, but I can reword if you have an idea of what you'd like
> to see (I've tweaked a bit in the attached patch to start).
I forgot to update in v8 so attaching v9.
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2019-01-22 16:19:11||Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-01-22 15:46:29||Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD|