On 8/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > At present, immutable functions are only treated as constants during a
> > query, which is what we want (no problems with prepare).
> Uh, no, they'd be folded to constants at plan time, which is exactly
> what Jeff doesn't want AFAICS.
yikes! I did test this before I posted that, but I oversimplified it:
I didn't move the func() to the where clause...do the subselect
version defined as volatile seems the way to go. unfortunately this
means you pay a small extra price for large result sets.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2007-08-31 21:11:22|
|Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-08-31 20:30:00|
|Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql |