On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:06 AM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > James Coleman writes:
> > > [ v6 patchset ]
> >
> > I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review
> >
> > statements; my bad). I also added the changes in test_predte
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > [ v6 patchset ]
>
> I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review
>
> statements; my bad). I also added the changes in test_predtest.c from
> 0002. I attach a rebased version of 0002, as well as 0003
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review
> >
> > statements; my bad). I also added the changes in test_predtest.c from
> > 0002. I attach a rebased version of 0002, as well as 0003 which isn't
> > changed, ma
I wrote:
> I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review
>
> statements; my bad). I also added the changes in test_predtest.c from
> 0002. I attach a rebased version of 0002, as well as 0003 which isn't
> changed, mainly to keep the cfbot happy.
[ squint.. ] Apparently I manag
James Coleman writes:
> [ v6 patchset ]
I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review
statements; my bad). I also added the changes in test_predtest.c from
0002. I attach a rebased version of 0002, as well as 0003 which isn't
changed, mainly to keep the cfbot happy.
I'm still
James Coleman writes:
> 0001 does the initial pure refactor. 0003 makes a lot of modifications
> to what we can prove about implication and refutation. Finally, 0003
> isn't intended to be committed, but attempts to validate more
> holistically that none of the changes creates any invalid proofs
>
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 2:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > I've not yet applied all of your feedback, but I wanted to get an
> > initial read on your thoughts on how using switch statements ends up
> > looking. Attached is a single (pure refactor) patch that converts the
> > va
James Coleman writes:
> I've not yet applied all of your feedback, but I wanted to get an
> initial read on your thoughts on how using switch statements ends up
> looking. Attached is a single (pure refactor) patch that converts the
> various if/else levels that check things like node tag and
> bo
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 4:38 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't have an objection in principle to adding more smarts to
> >> predtest.c. However, we should be wary of slowing down cases where
> >> no BooleanTests are pre
James Coleman writes:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't have an objection in principle to adding more smarts to
>> predtest.c. However, we should be wary of slowing down cases where
>> no BooleanTests are present to be optimized. I wonder if it could
>> help to use a
Thanks for taking a look!
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > Attached is a patch that solves that issue. It also teaches predtest about
> > quite a few more cases involving BooleanTest expressions (e.g., how they
> > relate to NullTest expressions). One
James Coleman writes:
> Attached is a patch that solves that issue. It also teaches predtest about
> quite a few more cases involving BooleanTest expressions (e.g., how they
> relate to NullTest expressions). One thing I could imagine being an
> objection is that not all of these warrant cycles in
Hello,
I recently encountered a case where partial indexes were surprisingly not
being used. The issue is that predtest doesn't understand how boolean
values and IS expressions relate.
For example if I have:
create table foo(i int, bar boolean);
create index on foo(i) where bar is true;
then t
13 matches
Mail list logo
