On 4 April 2018 at 16:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> It's true that the const simplification code will generally rewrite
>> most NOT(clause) to use the negator operator, but if the operator does
>> not have a negator it can't do this.
>> ...
>> At the moment pruning does not work for this case at all. Perhaps it should?
>
> It's hard to see why we'd expend extra effort to optimize such situations.
> The right answer would invariably be to fix the inadequate operator
> definition, because missing the negator link would hobble many other
> cases besides this.
>
> Now if you can show a case where the extra smarts would be useful
> without presuming a badly-written opclass, it's a different matter.
Okay, well that certainly sounds like less work.
In that case, the comment which claims we handle the NOT clauses needs
to be updated to mention that we only handle boolean NOT clauses and
don't optimize the remainder.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services