Re: [PATCH] Add support function for containment operators

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> But perhaps someone has an argument for a different rule?
>
> Anyway, pending discussion of that point, I think the code is good
> to go.  I don't like the test cases much though: they expend many more
> cycles than necessary.  You could prove the same points just by
> looking at the expansion of expressions, eg.
>

your patch is far better!

IMHO, worried about the support function, the transformed plan
generates the wrong result,
so we add the tests to make it bullet proof.
Now I see your point. If the transformed plan is right, the whole
added code should be fine.
but keeping the textrange_supp related test should be a good idea.
since we don't have SUBTYPE_OPCLASS related sql tests.