On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:07 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
...and here's a draft patch. I can take this to a new thread if you'd
prefer; the one here already got committed, on the other hand this is
pretty strongly linked to this discussion, so I figured it made sense
to post it here.
James
