Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >>> There's been some talk about prohibiting flattening if there are any
> >>> volatile functions in the subselect's targetlist, but nothing's been
> >>> done about that.
>
> > BTW, can you think in a good name for a GUC for this?
>
> I'm not in favor of a GUC for this; we should either do it or not.
>
> If we do it, basically the response to anyone who complains about loss
> of performance should be "fix your function to be marked stable or
> immutable, as appropriate".

Agreed. Are we doing this, or is it a TODO?

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +