From: | Dennis Björklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Hans Spaans <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)hansspaans(dot)nl>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: concat_ws |
Date: | 2003-08-04 05:44:37 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0308040737460.26410-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I added code to inline_function to stop inlining if a parameter
> expression to be substituted multiple times has cost greater than
> 10*cpu_operator_cost (which roughly means that it contains more than
> 10 operators or functions).
When is this inlining taking place and what is the logic? I just want to
make sure that there is no code in pg that will unfold forever, say for
example for a recursive fac() function. From the above it sounds like that
might be a problem.
--
/Dennis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-04 13:26:25 | Re: concat_ws |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-08-04 01:37:52 | Re: concat_ws |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-08-04 05:45:06 | Re: [HACKERS] statement level trigger causes pltcl, plpython SIGSEGV |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2003-08-04 05:28:40 | Re: Release changes |