| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | alvarezp(at)alvarezp(dot)ods(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Seq scan on zero-parameters function |
| Date: | 2004-02-06 14:55:28 |
| Message-ID: | 29560.1076079328@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> It's not entirely clear to me why this form is different from the other form
> though.
The code that checks for expressions containing unstable functions
doesn't look inside sub-selects. Arguably this is a bug, but people
were relying on that behavior way back before we had these nice
STABLE/IMMUTABLE tags for functions. I'm hesitant to change it for
fear of breaking people's apps.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-06 15:28:24 | Re: Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2004-02-06 10:44:59 | Re: 7.3 vs 7.4 performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Boes | 2004-02-06 16:17:47 | Re: Cool ORDER BY feature |
| Previous Message | CoL | 2004-02-06 13:56:01 | Re: Storing a range of numbers |