mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2025-07-28 23:42:10 +03:00
Fix test_predtest's idea of what weak refutation means.
I'd initially supposed that predicate_refuted_by(..., true) ought to say that "A refutes B" means "non-falsity of A implies non-truth of B". But it seems better to define it as "truth of A implies non-truth of B". This is more useful in the current system, slightly easier to prove, and in closer correspondence to the existing code behavior. With this change, test_predtest no longer claims that any existing test cases show false proof reports, though there still are cases where we could prove something and fail to. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us
This commit is contained in:
@ -119,7 +119,6 @@ select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x is not true, x
|
||||
from booleans
|
||||
$$);
|
||||
WARNING: weak_refuted_by result is incorrect
|
||||
-[ RECORD 1 ]-----+--
|
||||
strong_implied_by | f
|
||||
weak_implied_by | f
|
||||
@ -128,7 +127,7 @@ weak_refuted_by | t
|
||||
s_i_holds | f
|
||||
w_i_holds | f
|
||||
s_r_holds | t
|
||||
w_r_holds | f
|
||||
w_r_holds | t
|
||||
|
||||
select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x, x is not true
|
||||
@ -176,7 +175,6 @@ select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x is unknown, x
|
||||
from booleans
|
||||
$$);
|
||||
WARNING: weak_refuted_by result is incorrect
|
||||
-[ RECORD 1 ]-----+--
|
||||
strong_implied_by | f
|
||||
weak_implied_by | f
|
||||
@ -185,7 +183,7 @@ weak_refuted_by | t
|
||||
s_i_holds | f
|
||||
w_i_holds | f
|
||||
s_r_holds | t
|
||||
w_r_holds | f
|
||||
w_r_holds | t
|
||||
|
||||
select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x, x is unknown
|
||||
@ -214,7 +212,7 @@ weak_refuted_by | f
|
||||
s_i_holds | f
|
||||
w_i_holds | f
|
||||
s_r_holds | t
|
||||
w_r_holds | f
|
||||
w_r_holds | t
|
||||
|
||||
select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x, x is null
|
||||
@ -650,7 +648,7 @@ weak_refuted_by | f
|
||||
s_i_holds | f
|
||||
w_i_holds | f
|
||||
s_r_holds | t
|
||||
w_r_holds | f
|
||||
w_r_holds | t
|
||||
|
||||
select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x is null, int4lt(x,8)
|
||||
@ -664,7 +662,7 @@ weak_refuted_by | f
|
||||
s_i_holds | f
|
||||
w_i_holds | f
|
||||
s_r_holds | t
|
||||
w_r_holds | f
|
||||
w_r_holds | t
|
||||
|
||||
select * from test_predtest($$
|
||||
select x is not null, x < 'foo'
|
||||
|
@ -104,14 +104,18 @@ test_predtest(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
|
||||
c2 = 'f';
|
||||
|
||||
/* Check for violations of various proof conditions */
|
||||
|
||||
/* strong implication: truth of c2 implies truth of c1 */
|
||||
if (c2 == 't' && c1 != 't')
|
||||
s_i_holds = false;
|
||||
/* weak implication: non-falsity of c2 implies non-falsity of c1 */
|
||||
if (c2 != 'f' && c1 == 'f')
|
||||
w_i_holds = false;
|
||||
/* strong refutation: truth of c2 implies falsity of c1 */
|
||||
if (c2 == 't' && c1 != 'f')
|
||||
s_r_holds = false;
|
||||
/* XXX is this the correct definition for weak refutation? */
|
||||
if (c2 != 'f' && c1 == 't')
|
||||
/* weak refutation: truth of c2 implies non-truth of c1 */
|
||||
if (c2 == 't' && c1 == 't')
|
||||
w_r_holds = false;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user