On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 9:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 09:15, James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 6:25 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm a bit undecided if it's safe to set the opfuncid to the negator
> >>> function. If anything were to set that again based on the opno then
> >>> it would likely set it to the wrong thing. We can't go changing the
> >>> opno either because EXPLAIN would display the wrong thing.
>
> >> I don't personally see a reason why this is a problem. But I also
> >> don't know that I have enough knowledge of the codebase to say that
> >> definitively.
>
> > The reason for my concern is that if the opfuncid is set to
> > InvalidOid, set_sa_opfuncid() always sets the ScalarArrayOpExpr's
> > opfuncid to get_opcode(opexpr->opno).
>
> I will personally veto any design that involves setting opfuncid to
> something that doesn't match the opno. That's just horrid, and it
> will break something somewhere, either immediately or down the road.
This is the "project design" style/policy I don't have. Thanks.
> I don't immediately see why you can't add an "invert" boolean flag to
> ScalarArrayOpExpr and let the executor machinery deal with this. That'd
> have the advantage of not having to depend on there being a negator.
Don't we need to have a negator to be able to look up the proper has
function? At least somewhere in the process you'd have to convert from
looking up the <> op to looking up the = op and then setting the
"invert" flag.
James