> > This comment seems wrong: > > > > + * However weak implication fails: e.g., "NULL IS NOT NULL" is false, but > > + * "NULL = ANY(ARRAY[NULL])" is NULL, so non-falsity does not imply > > non-falsity. > > > > "non-falsity does not imply non-falsity"? I suppose one of those > > negations should be different ... > > Earlier in the file weak implication (comments above > predicate_implied_by) is defined as "non-falsity of A implies > non-falsity of B". In this example we have NULL for A (non-false) but > false for B, so that definition doesn't hold. So I think the comment > is accurate, but I can reword if you have an idea of what you'd like > to see (I've tweaked a bit in the attached patch to start).
I forgot to update in v8 so attaching v9. James Coleman
saop_is_not_null-v9.patch
Description: Binary data
