Re: leaky views, yet again

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: leaky views, yet again
Date: 2010-07-21 10:26:43
Message-ID: AANLkTinVSbWTrvjgzkiBnzRPQCLU=e-5ba+nwXOjEQna@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/7/21 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> On the other hand, if it's enough from a performance
>> point of view to review and mark only a few built-in functions like
>> index operators, maybe it's ok.
>>
> I also think it is a worthful idea to try as a proof-of-concept.

Yeah. So, should we mark this patch as Returned with Feedback, and
you can submit a proof-of-concept patch for the next CF?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-07-21 10:29:38 Re: psql \conninfo command (was: Patch: psql \whoami option)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-07-21 10:25:39 Re: leaky views, yet again