Re: Question about simple function folding optimization

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about simple function folding optimization
Date: 2003-04-09 17:07:34
Message-ID: 20030409170734.GA497@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:54:23 -0400,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> The simplest answer is probably to convert the function to plpgsql,
> which would probably give better performance for index access anyway.
> But I wonder whether any better answer is possible. I don't want to
> give up on the inlining optimization --- anyone see another fix?

Include an option for function definitions to not allow the function
being defined to be inlined.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-04-09 17:09:26 Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-09 16:48:04 Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?