Teach predicate_refuted_by() how to do proofs involving NOT-clauses.

This doesn't matter too much for ordinary NOTs, since prepqual.c does
its best to get rid of those, but it helps with IS NOT TRUE clauses
which the rule rewriter likes to insert.  Per example from Martin Lesser.

Author: tglsfdc

src/backend/optimizer/util/predtest.c

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
  *
  *
  * IDENTIFICATION
- *	  $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/util/predtest.c,v 1.7 2006/07/14 14:52:21 momjian Exp $
+ *	  $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/util/predtest.c,v 1.8 2006/08/05 00:21:14 tgl Exp $
  *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  */
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static Node *arrayexpr_next_fn(PredIterInfo info);
 static void arrayexpr_cleanup_fn(PredIterInfo info);
 static bool predicate_implied_by_simple_clause(Expr *predicate, Node *clause);
 static bool predicate_refuted_by_simple_clause(Expr *predicate, Node *clause);
+static Node *extract_not_arg(Node *clause);
 static bool btree_predicate_proof(Expr *predicate, Node *clause,
 					  bool refute_it);
 
@@ -393,6 +394,13 @@ predicate_implied_by_recurse(Node *clause, Node *predicate)
  *	OR-expr A R=> AND-expr B iff:	each of A's components R=> any of B's
  *	OR-expr A R=> OR-expr B iff:	A R=> each of B's components
  *
+ * In addition, if the predicate is a NOT-clause then we can use
+ *	A R=> NOT B if:					A => B
+ * while if the restriction clause is a NOT-clause then we can use
+ *	NOT A R=> B if:					B => A
+ * This works for several different SQL constructs that assert the non-truth
+ * of their argument, ie NOT, IS FALSE, IS NOT TRUE, IS UNKNOWN.
+ *
  * Other comments are as for predicate_implied_by_recurse().
  *----------
  */
@@ -402,6 +410,7 @@ predicate_refuted_by_recurse(Node *clause, Node *predicate)
 	PredIterInfoData clause_info;
 	PredIterInfoData pred_info;
 	PredClass	pclass;
+	Node	   *not_arg;
 	bool		result;
 
 	/* skip through RestrictInfo */
@@ -467,6 +476,13 @@ predicate_refuted_by_recurse(Node *clause, Node *predicate)
 					return result;
 
 				case CLASS_ATOM:
+					/*
+					 * If B is a NOT-clause, A R=> B if A => B's arg
+					 */
+					not_arg = extract_not_arg(predicate);
+					if (not_arg &&
+						predicate_implied_by_recurse(clause, not_arg))
+						return true;
 					/*
 					 * AND-clause R=> atom if any of A's items refutes B
 					 */
@@ -532,6 +548,13 @@ predicate_refuted_by_recurse(Node *clause, Node *predicate)
 					return result;
 
 				case CLASS_ATOM:
+					/*
+					 * If B is a NOT-clause, A R=> B if A => B's arg
+					 */
+					not_arg = extract_not_arg(predicate);
+					if (not_arg &&
+						predicate_implied_by_recurse(clause, not_arg))
+						return true;
 					/*
 					 * OR-clause R=> atom if each of A's items refutes B
 					 */
@@ -550,6 +573,13 @@ predicate_refuted_by_recurse(Node *clause, Node *predicate)
 			break;
 
 		case CLASS_ATOM:
+			/*
+			 * If A is a NOT-clause, A R=> B if B => A's arg
+			 */
+			not_arg = extract_not_arg(clause);
+			if (not_arg &&
+				predicate_implied_by_recurse(predicate, not_arg))
+				return true;
 			switch (pclass)
 			{
 				case CLASS_AND:
@@ -585,6 +615,13 @@ predicate_refuted_by_recurse(Node *clause, Node *predicate)
 					return result;
 
 				case CLASS_ATOM:
+					/*
+					 * If B is a NOT-clause, A R=> B if A => B's arg
+					 */
+					not_arg = extract_not_arg(predicate);
+					if (not_arg &&
+						predicate_implied_by_recurse(clause, not_arg))
+						return true;
 					/*
 					 * atom R=> atom is the base case
 					 */
@@ -917,8 +954,7 @@ predicate_implied_by_simple_clause(Expr *predicate, Node *clause)
  * We return TRUE if able to prove the refutation, FALSE if not.
  *
  * Unlike the implication case, checking for equal() clauses isn't
- * helpful.  (XXX is it worth looking at "x vs NOT x" cases?  Probably
- * not seeing that canonicalization tries to get rid of NOTs.)
+ * helpful.
  *
  * When the predicate is of the form "foo IS NULL", we can conclude that
  * the predicate is refuted if the clause is a strict operator or function
@@ -931,7 +967,12 @@ predicate_implied_by_simple_clause(Expr *predicate, Node *clause)
 static bool
 predicate_refuted_by_simple_clause(Expr *predicate, Node *clause)
 {
-	/* First try the IS NULL case */
+	/* A simple clause can't refute itself */
+	/* Worth checking because of relation_excluded_by_constraints() */
+	if ((Node *) predicate == clause)
+		return false;
+
+	/* Try the IS NULL case */
 	if (predicate && IsA(predicate, NullTest) &&
 		((NullTest *) predicate)->nulltesttype == IS_NULL)
 	{
@@ -953,6 +994,35 @@ predicate_refuted_by_simple_clause(Expr *predicate, Node *clause)
 }
 
 
+/*
+ * If clause asserts the non-truth of a subclause, return that subclause;
+ * otherwise return NULL.
+ */
+static Node *
+extract_not_arg(Node *clause)
+{
+	if (clause == NULL)
+		return NULL;
+	if (IsA(clause, BoolExpr))
+	{
+		BoolExpr   *bexpr = (BoolExpr *) clause;
+
+		if (bexpr->boolop == NOT_EXPR)
+			return (Node *) linitial(bexpr->args);
+	}
+	else if (IsA(clause, BooleanTest))
+	{
+		BooleanTest *btest = (BooleanTest *) clause;
+
+		if (btest->booltesttype == IS_NOT_TRUE ||
+			btest->booltesttype == IS_FALSE ||
+			btest->booltesttype == IS_UNKNOWN)
+			return (Node *) btest->arg;
+	}
+	return NULL;
+}
+
+
 /*
  * Define an "operator implication table" for btree operators ("strategies"),
  * and a similar table for refutation.