Re: [HACKERS] Re: INET operators and NOT

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> What's going on here is that the optimizer is simplifying "NOT x<<y"
>> (network_sub) into "x>>=y" (network_supeq), because the pg_operator
>> entry for << claims that >>= is its negator.  This example demonstrates
>> that that ain't so.
>> 
>> Can anyone comment on whether any of the inet operators are actually the
>> correct negator of << ?  For that matter, are inet's other commutator
>> and negator declarations just as broken?

I did take out the demonstrably incorrect negator links for 7.0.
We still have those other issues about CIDR/INET types though...

			regards, tom lane