| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: iscacheable for date/time? |
| Date: | 2001-09-26 15:01:22 |
| Message-ID: | 873.1001516482@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> ... and how about the istrusted attribute for various routines? Should
> it be always false or always true for C builtin functions?
At the moment it seems to be true for every pg_proc entry in template1.
AFAIK the attribute is not actually being looked at, anyway. I think
it used to be used to determine which functions needed to be executed in
a separate subprocess for safety reasons (ie, coredump of the function
wouldn't kill the backend) ... but that code's been gone for a long while.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-26 15:15:00 | Re: PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT by mapping WAL FILES |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-26 14:57:58 | Re: iscacheable for date/time? |