Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

 * NOTE:  returns NULL if clause is an OR or AND clause; it is the
 * responsibility of higher-level routines to cope with those.
 */
static IndexClause *
match_clause_to_indexcol(PlannerInfo *root,
                         RestrictInfo *rinfo,
                         int indexcol,
                         IndexOptInfo *index)

the above comments need a slight change.


EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF, settings) SELECT * FROM tenk2 WHERE  (thousand = 1
OR thousand = 3);
                        QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------
 Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk2
   Recheck Cond: ((thousand = 1) OR (thousand = 3))
   ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk2_thous_tenthous
         Index Cond: (thousand = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))

EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF, settings) SELECT * FROM tenk2 WHERE  (thousand in (1,3));
                        QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------
 Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk2
   Recheck Cond: (thousand = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))
   ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk2_thous_tenthous
         Index Cond: (thousand = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))

tenk2 index:
Indexes:
    "tenk2_thous_tenthous" btree (thousand, tenthous)

Looking at the above cases, I found out the "Recheck Cond" is
different from "Index Cond".
I wonder why there is a difference, or if they should be the same.
then i come to:
match_orclause_to_indexcol

    /*
     * Finally, build an IndexClause based on the SAOP node. Use
     * make_simple_restrictinfo() to get RestrictInfo with clean selectivity
     * estimations because it may differ from the estimation made for an OR
     * clause. Although it is not a lossy expression, keep the old version of
     * rinfo in iclause->rinfo to detect duplicates and recheck the original
     * clause.
     */
    iclause = makeNode(IndexClause);
    iclause->rinfo = rinfo;
    iclause->indexquals = list_make1(make_simple_restrictinfo(root,
                                                              &saopexpr->xpr));
    iclause->lossy = false;
    iclause->indexcol = indexcol;
    iclause->indexcols = NIL;

looking at create_bitmap_scan_plan.
I think "iclause->rinfo" itself won't be able to detect duplicates.
since the upper code would mostly use "iclause->indexquals" for comparison?


typedef struct IndexClause comments says:
"
 * indexquals is a list of RestrictInfos for the directly-usable index
 * conditions associated with this IndexClause.  In the simplest case
 * it's a one-element list whose member is iclause->rinfo.  Otherwise,
 * it contains one or more directly-usable indexqual conditions extracted
 * from the given clause.  The 'lossy' flag indicates whether the
 * indexquals are semantically equivalent to the original clause, or
 * represent a weaker condition.
"
should lossy be iclause->lossy be true at the end of match_orclause_to_indexcol?
since it meets the comment condition: "semantically equivalent to the
original clause"
or is the above comment slightly wrong?

in match_orclause_to_indexcol
i changed from
iclause->rinfo = rinfo;
to
 iclause->rinfo = make_simple_restrictinfo(root,
                                                &saopexpr->xpr);

as expected. now the "Recheck Cond" is same as "Index Cond"
   Recheck Cond: (thousand = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))
   ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk2_thous_tenthous
         Index Cond: (thousand = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))

I am not sure of the implication of this change.