| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tels <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declaring a strict function returns not null / eval speed |
| Date: | 2019-10-22 19:06:50 |
| Message-ID: | 821.1571771210@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-10-20 10:27:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "RETURNS NOT NULL", perhaps? That'd have the advantage of not requiring
>> any new keyword.
> That could work.
Actually, I think we probably don't need any SQL representation of this
at all, because if what you're going to do with it is omit logically
necessary null-value checks, then a wrong setting would trivially crash
the server. Therefore, we can never give the ability to set this flag
to users; we could only set it on built-in functions.
(But that saves a lot of work, eg dump/restore support isn't needed
either.)
This doesn't seem too awful to me, because non-builtin functions are
most likely slow enough that it doesn't matter.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2019-10-22 19:18:45 | Re: Declaring a strict function returns not null / eval speed |
| Previous Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2019-10-22 19:02:38 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |