| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat |
| Date: | 2010-05-16 18:20:23 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTil3gLAg4rOxbOmedBH1_8EM94tm4W3INDsFMU-W@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Couldn't you apply this argument to any built-in immutable function whatsoever?
>
> No, only the ones that are built on top of other functions that aren't
> immutable.
Built on top of? I don't get it. It seems like anything of the form
immutablefunction(volatilefunction()) is vulnerable to this, and you
can give a volatile function as an argument to any function you like.
If you're saying we're testing for immutability by looking only at the
outermost function call, that seems pretty broken.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-05-16 18:50:29 | Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-16 17:25:12 | Re: Synchronous replication patch built on SR |