On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 08:26:54AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 04:24:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > I think this needs some serious research.
> >
> > We've discussed this topic before. The spec's definition of IS [NOT]
> > NULL for composite values is bizarre to say the least. I think
> > there's been an intentional choice to keep most NOT NULL checks
> > "simple", that is we look at the overall value's isnull bit and
> > don't probe any deeper than that.
> >
> > If the optimizations added in v17 changed existing behavior,
> > I agree that's bad. We should probably fix it so that those
> > are only applied when argisrow is false.
>
> I have developed the attached patch using your argisrow suggestion which
> fixes the test I posted. Is this something we should backpatch?
Patch applied. This fix will appear in the next minor PG 17 release.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
