On 2018/03/06 18:46, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>> Patch teaches it to ignore nulls when it's known that the operator being
>> used is strict. It is harmless and has the benefit that constraint
>> exclusion gives an answer that is consistent with what actually running
>> such a qual against a table's rows would do.
> Yes, I understood that. I just meant that I don't know if it is the
> best way to skip NULLs inside "next_fn". Maybe the caller of the
> "next_fn"s should skip them. Anyway, the committer can judge this
I think putting that inside those next_fn functions tends to centralize
the logic and would run only only for the intended cases.
>> Yeah. Rearranged the code to fix that.
> This version looks correct to me.
>> + state->next = (state->next != NULL) ? lnext(state->next) : NULL;
>> + node = (state->next != NULL) ? lfirst(state->next) : NULL;
> I think it is unnecessary to check for (state->next != NULL) two
> times. We can put those in a single if.
Hmm, state->next refers to two different pointer values on line 1 and line
2. It may end up being set to NULL on line 1. Am I missing something?