Re: Logical Implication

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Logical Implication
Date: 2026-09-29 20:23:44
Message-ID: CAN4CZFPUmkNyYP=MJbCE3OC21-De9AYhJXOD_wd8Q06E6xBzqQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello!

One test nitpick:

+SELECT istrue IMPLIES isnul IS NULL FROM booltbl4;

istrue IMPLIES (isnul IS NULL) and (istrue IMPLIES isnul) IS NULL are
both true. isfalse wouldn't have the same issue.

%left INTERSECT
+%right IMPLIES
%left OR

And +1 for using %nonassoc instead

That way "a IMPLIES b IMPLIES c" would be a syntax error, leaving open
the later possibility of making it right associative. The other way of
going with right, and then restricting it later doesn't seem that
clean, even with documenting it, as right associative use can appear
as text in plpgsql bodies and similar.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Kane 2026-09-29 20:28:21 Re: Fix conversion warnings in headers
Previous Message Alexander Lakhin 2026-09-29 20:00:00 Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can crash a logical decoding session