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

Re: auditing in postgresql

From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql
Date: 2007-08-31 20:42:48
Message-ID: b42b73150708311342x29eee73fh94b3e39a0d80ffa6@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
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.

merlin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2007-08-31 21:11:22
Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-31 20:30:00
Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql

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