On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:49 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > > I realised when working on something unrelated last night that we can
> > > also do hash lookups for NOT IN too.
> >
> > ... and still get the behavior right for nulls?
>
> Yeah, it will. There are already some special cases for NULLs in the
> IN version. Those would need to be adapted for NOT IN.
I hadn't thought about using the negator operator directly that way
when I initially wrote the patch.
But also I didn't think a whole lot about the NOT IN case at all --
and there's no mention of such that I see in this thread or the
precursor thread. It's pretty obvious that it wasn't part of my
immediate need, but obviously it'd be nice to have the consistency.
All that to say this: my vote would be to put it into PG15 also.
James