From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
cc: Amit Langote <amitlan@postgresql.org>,
        Alvaro Herrera <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: 
 <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>
Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 19 Feb 2024 01:53:29 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3873393.1708273499.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:24:59 -0500
Message-ID: <3873394.1708273499@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3873394.1708273499%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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