> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Got it. How does an IN subquery returning NULL behave differently from
> > one returning FALSE? I can't think of a test that would be affected.
>
> After we fix IS TRUE and friends to respond to nulls correctly (Conway's
> promised to do that, IIRC) it'll be possible to write
>
> (foo IN (SELECT ...)) IS NOT FALSE
>
> and get the "intuitive" behavior. But right now that doesn't work.
OK, so I wasn't missing anything in our current code. I can see how
this capability would change things.
> Hm. Maybe we could recognize that construct as a whole, and translate
> it to an optimizable join? It'd become the usual locution, I imagine.
Are we anywhere with optimizing IN to EXISTS? I didn't think there was
any work being done in that area.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
