On 2017/09/04 20:46, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > On 04.09.2017 12:59, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/09/04 18:19, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: >>> Concerning your suggestion to merge check_index_predicates() and >>> remove_restrictions_implied_by_constraints() functions: may be it can be >>> done, but frankly speaking I do not see much sense in it - there are too >>> much differences between this functions and too few code reusing. >> Maybe, you meant to address Thomas here. :) Reading his comment again, I >> too am a bit concerned about destructively modifying the input rel's >> baserestrictinfo. There should at least be a comment that that's being >> done. > > But I have considered Thomas comment and extracted code updating > relation's baserestrictinfo from > relation_excluded_by_constraints() to > remove_restrictions_implied_by_constraints() function. It was included in > new version of the patch.
Sorry, I hadn't noticed the new patch. I was confused because I didn't suggest "to merge check_index_predicates() and remove_restrictions_implied_by_constraints() functions". Perhaps, the wording in my previous message wasn't clear. Looking at the new patch, the changes regarding remove_restrictions_implied_by_constraints() look fine. Like Thomas, I'm not so sure about the whole predtest.c patch. The core logic in operator_predicate_proof() should be able to conclude that, say, k < 21 is implied by k <= 20, which you are trying to address with some special case code. If there is still problem you think need to be fixed here, a better place to look at would be somewhere around get_btree_test_op(). Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers