Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@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/31878.1497389...@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
