From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Adam Berlin <berlin(dot)ab(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: COPY FROM WHEN condition |
Date: | 2018-11-30 13:43:25 |
Message-ID: | 194e2225-b186-9325-0cd1-9a5b09d28251@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/30/18 2:00 PM, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:17 AM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> (c) allow VOLATILE functions in the FILTER clause, but change the
> behavior to make the behavior sane
>
> Did changing the behavior means getting new snapshot before evaluating
> a tuple to ensure the function sees results of any previously executed
> queries or there are other mechanism that can make the behavior sane?
>
I think it should be enough just to switch to CIM_SINGLE and increment
the command counter after each inserted row.
> Which leaves us with (b) and (c). Clearly, (b) is simpler to implement,
> because it (c) needs to do the detection too, and then some additional
> stuff. I'm not sure how much more complex (c) is, compared to (b).
>
> The attache patch implement option b prohibit VOLATILE functions but i
> am open to change
OK. I'll take a look.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-11-30 13:51:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2018-11-30 13:36:56 | Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? |