| 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 |
| Date: | 2019-01-22 15:49:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAAaqYe-yvGTdNaJ2xcjmN4hykaqFSBd2bSd2EZ-Z4auUy7owuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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.
James Coleman
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| saop_is_not_null-v9.patch | application/octet-stream | 26.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |