From: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Division by zero |
Date: | 2009-08-02 16:25:55 |
Message-ID: | 20090802162555.GT5407@samason.me.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/8/2 Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>:
> > On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 05:22:45PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> 2009/8/2 Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>:
> >> > On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:18PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> >> There is paradox - IMMUTABLE function break inlinig :(. There is maybe bug
> >> >
> >> > Not in any tests I've done.
> >>
> >> I did it - and in this case immutable is wrong and strict not.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but I'm pretty sure the OP
> > wants IMMUTABLE and does not want STRICT/RETURNS NULL ON NULL INPUT.
>
> I checked if function was inlined or not. When I mark function as
> strict then it was inlined. When I mark function as IMMUTABLE then it
> wasn't inlined. That's all - you can check it too.
I will be checking different things, please say what you're testing.
Different things are inlined in different places, its the different
places things get inlined that cause the optimizer to do different
things.
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-02 16:32:53 | Re: Division by zero |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2009-08-02 16:21:05 | Re: building a binary-portable database |