From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlan@postgresql.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: exclusion@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:24:59 -0500
Message-ID: <3873394.1708273499@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvoFbt0fne1C_prK5j0MvxHccJD7NxUY0UDaTtAZuEyxrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18344-8d3f00bada6d09c6@postgresql.org>
<3263261.1708014503@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAApHDvqriy8mPOFJ_Bd66YGXJ4+XULpv-4YdB+ePdCQFztyisA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvoFbt0fne1C_prK5j0MvxHccJD7NxUY0UDaTtAZuEyxrg@mail.gmail.com>
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
> IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
> partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.
+1 ... sounds clean and clearly correct.
> I'm tempted to go a bit further in master only and add support for
> bool IS NOT UNKNOWN and bool IS UNKNOWN using the same method.
These are the same as IS NOT NULL and IS NULL, so I don't see the
need for an OR?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, amitlan@postgresql.org, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy
In-Reply-To: <3873394.1708273499@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox