From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimize constant MinMax expressions |
Date: | 2018-12-30 18:44:59 |
Message-ID: | 18620.1546195499@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 30/12/2018 00:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Can we assume that the underlying datatype comparison function is
>> immutable? I guess so, since we assume that in nearby code such as
>> contain_mutable_functions_walker, but I don't think it should be done
>> without at least a comment.
> Adding a comment is easy enough. How is the attached?
Pushed with a bit of wordsmithing on the comment.
>> BTW, poking around for other code involving MinMaxExpr, I notice that
>> contain_leaked_vars_walker is effectively assuming that all datatype
>> comparison functions are leakproof, an assumption I find a bit debatable.
>> Maybe it's all right, but again, it should certainly not have gone without
>> a comment.
> Surely this is out of scope for my patch?
I'd been thinking that we might just add a similar comment there, but
on reflection that doesn't seem like the right thing, so I started a
separate thread about it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-12-30 19:06:41 | Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL/XML Standards |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-30 18:24:02 | Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof? |