On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:11 PM David Rowley wrote:
> I went over this again. I did a little more work adjusting comments
> and pushed it.
>
> Thanks for all your assistance with this, Richard.
Thanks for pushing! This is really great.
Thanks
Richard
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 00:11, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached v11 which updates the expected results in some newly
> added regression tests.
I went over this again. I did a little more work adjusting comments
and pushed it.
Thanks for all your assistance with this, Richard.
David
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 17:32, Peter Smith wrote:
> Hi, This patch has a CF status of "Needs Review" [1], but it seems
> there were CFbot test failures last time it was run [2].
I've attached v11 which updates the expected results in some newly
added regression tests.
No other changes.
David
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 00:38, Andy Fan wrote:
> I also want to add notnullattnums for the UniqueKey stuff as well, by
> comparing your implementation with mine, I found you didn't consider
> the NOT NULL generated by filter. After apply your patch:
>
> create table a(a int);
> explain (costs
2024-01 Commitfest.
Hi, This patch has a CF status of "Needs Review" [1], but it seems
there were CFbot test failures last time it was run [2]. Please
have a look and post an updated version if necessary.
==
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4459/
[2]
Richard Guo writes:
>
> The detection of self-inconsistent restrictions already exists in
> planner.
>
> # set constraint_exclusion to on;
> SET
> # explain (costs off) select * from a where a > 3 and a is null;
> QUERY PLAN
> --
> Result
>One-Time Filter:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 7:38 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> I also want to add notnullattnums for the UniqueKey stuff as well, by
> comparing your implementation with mine, I found you didn't consider
> the NOT NULL generated by filter. After apply your patch:
>
> create table a(a int);
> explain (costs
Hi,
David Rowley writes:
>
> Happy to hear other people's thoughts on this patch. Otherwise, I
> currently don't think the missed optimisation is a reason to block
> what we've ended up with so far.
>
> David
>
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/flat/17540-7aa1855ad5ec18b4%40postgresql.org
>
> [2.
(Moving discussion from -bugs [1] to -hackers for more visibility.)
Background:
This started out as a performance fix for bug #17540 but has now
extended beyond that as fixing that only requires we don't add
redundant IS NOT NULL quals to Min/Max aggregate rewrites. The
attached gets rid of all
