From: | Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: avoid pulling up subquerys that contain volatile functions? |
Date: | 2005-10-09 07:35:13 |
Message-ID: | c2d9e70e0510090035i6ecd0b92s4d85d10b243a62a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/8/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > but this example seems to clarify (or at least i think) that we have to
> avoid
> > pulling up subquerys containing volatile functions:
>
> This is exactly the same example discussed in previous threads on this
> issue. Do you think it will change anyone's mind?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
you are right, i haven't internet all day this week so i'm reading
mails for parts...
in any case, i still think that is better to get bad performance
because i forgot to correctly mark a function that to get incorrect
data from a correct query because a "gotcha"... there is a precedent
for this in postgres???
BTW, i still wanna get a patch for my postgres... so i will keep
trying... but i don't understand why when i add the function
contain_volatile_functions in the is_simple_subquery function i got
the same results... :)
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-10-09 08:54:42 | Re: Added documentation about caching, reliability |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-10-08 23:34:21 | Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not? |