On 2018/03/14 17:16, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/03/10 13:40, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wrote: >>> I think it'd make more sense to see about incorporating that idea in >>> predicate_implied_by_simple_clause/predicate_refuted_by_simple_clause. >> >> After further thought, it seems like the place to deal with this is >> really operator_predicate_proof(), as in the attached draft patch >> against HEAD. This passes the smell test for me, in the sense that >> it's an arguably correct and general extension of the proof rules, >> but it could use more testing. > > Thanks for the patch. I agree it handles the case I presented my patch > for in a more principled manner. So, I've marked the CF entry for my > patch as Rejected.
Oops, sorry I hadn't actually seen the CF entry before hitting send on this email. Seeing that Tom intends to attach his patch with this CF entry, I will leave the entry alone for now. Thanks, Amit