From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Seref Arikan <serefarikan(at)kurumsalteknoloji(dot)com>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Does it make sense to break a large query into separate functions? |
Date: | 2013-05-08 19:04:43 |
Message-ID: | 11326.1368039883@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> odd that stable function is inlined but immutable isn't!
Well, it knows that the expansion to to_date() would only be stable not
immutable (because to_date depends on some GUC settings), so doing the
expansion could change the behavior, eg by preventing constant-folding.
Although usually wrapping a stable function in an immutable one is a
recipe for disaster, we don't forbid it because there are cases where it
makes sense --- for instance, you might know that the function really is
immutable *in your usage*, and want to use it as an index function or
some such. But the SQL-function wrapper adds a lot of overhead. I
think a plpgsql wrapper would be better here, if you need to cheat about
the mutability.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tyson Maly | 2013-05-08 19:14:39 | Re: question on most efficient way to increment a column |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-05-08 18:41:12 | Re: Does it make sense to break a large query into separate functions? |