I don't think it even has to be so specific. We should just always
rewrite bool <> bool into bool = NOT bool.
Hmm. That only has a 50/50 chance of creating an indexable clause.
Perhaps we could even rewrite it as "a = NOT b AND NOT a = b".
--
Greg
On 2009-07-17, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> ... But again, this is data type specific knowledge.
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, the planner already has
> datatype-specific knowledge about boolean equality (see
> simplify_boolean_equality). It would take just a few more lines of
> code
> there to recognize "x <> true" and "x <> false" as additional variant
> spellings of the generic "x" or "NOT x" constructs. Not sure if it's
> worth the trouble though; how many people really write such things?
>
> If you really wanted to take it to extremes, you could also reduce
> cases like "x > false", but that's starting to get a bit silly.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
