From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Testbed for predtest.c ... and some arguable bugs therein
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+Tgmoam0xtW2ZaSpv4crAkmha+OPf+AZhOcUQnLZa005SAY9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoam0xtW2ZaSpv4crAkmha+OPf+AZhOcUQnLZa005SAY9w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 08 Mar 2018 12:14:53 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <20259.1520533976.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:32:56 -0500
Message-ID: <20260.1520533976@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that that's worth fixing right now.  Instead I'm tempted
>> to revert the addition of the clause_is_check argument to
>> predicate_refuted_by, on the grounds that it's both broken and currently
>> unnecessary.

> Hmm, I think you were the one who pushed for adding that argument in
> the first place: http://postgr.es/m/31878.1497389320@sss.pgh.pa.us

I'm kind of disappointed that you failed to take the *other* advice
in that message, as I still think that clause_is_check is a poor
choice of name for the flag.  It could have been salvaged with a
clear comment defining the semantics, but that's not there either.

> I have no problem with taking it back out, although I'm disappointed
> that I failed to find whatever was broken about it during review.

Maybe I'll spend a few minutes trying to isolate why the current
results are wrong.  However, it's certainly arguable that we shouldn't
spend much time on this with no use-case in sight.

			regards, tom lane