Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Passing arguments to views

From: Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Passing arguments to views
Date: 2006-02-03 19:08:22
Message-ID: 43E3AA26.5040106@markdilger.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> writes:
> 
>>If we are talking about inserting the function definition into the
>>query as a subquery and then letting the parser treat it as a
>>subquery, then I see no reason to use either the existing function or
>>view subsystems.  It sounds more like we are discussing a macro
>>language.
> 
> 
> Which is pretty much what a SQL function is already.  I don't see a need
> to invent a separate concept.  To the extent that macros have different
> semantics than functions (eg, multiple evaluation of arguments) the
> differences are generally not improvements IMHO ...
> 
> 			regards, tom lane

I have numerous times run EXPLAIN ANALYZE on my queries with SQL functions 
embedded and gotten different (far worse) results than if I manually inline the 
function following the macro expansion idea above.  That has led me to wish that 
postgres would inline it for me.  That doesn't prove that the macro idea is 
needed; it might be that the SQL function systems needs more work.  (In fact, I 
haven't done this since 8.0.3, so I'm not sure that 8.1 even does a bad job 
anymore.)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeremy DrakeDate: 2006-02-03 19:12:31
Subject: Re: Multiple logical databases
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-02-03 19:07:12
Subject: Re: Function Stats WAS: Passing arguments to views

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group