On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> ... But again, this is data type specific knowledge. > > Actually, now that I think about it, the planner already has > datatype-specific knowledge about boolean equality (see > simplify_boolean_equality). It would take just a few more lines of code > there to recognize "x <> true" and "x <> false" as additional variant > spellings of the generic "x" or "NOT x" constructs. Not sure if it's > worth the trouble though; how many people really write such things?
I don't know, but there's probably somebody. I probably did it myself a few times, when I was just starting out. If it's easy, it seems worth doing. The problem with these things is that no matter how lame it seems to do whatever-it-is, the pain when someone does is really large... so adding a little bit of code to avoid that seems worthwhile, at least to me. > If you really wanted to take it to extremes, you could also reduce > cases like "x > false", but that's starting to get a bit silly. Probably that one is beyond even my tolerance. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
