Re: abstract: fix poor constant folding in 7.0.x, fixed in 7.1?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: abstract: fix poor constant folding in 7.0.x, fixed in 7.1?
Date: 2000-12-08 01:58:31
Message-ID: 29153.976240711@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> ... However there's a hook mentioned in my abstract that
> explains that if a constant makes it into a function, you can
> provide a hook so that the function can return whether or not that
> constant is cacheable.

Oh, I see --- you're right, I missed that part of your proposal.

I dunno ... if we had more than one example of a case where this was
needed (and if that example weren't demonstrably broken for other
reasons), maybe that'd be worth doing. But it seems like a lot of
mechanism to add to solve a problem we shouldn't have anyway.

> I do see that on:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2000-09/msg00408.html
> both you and Thomas Lockhart agree that CURRENT is a broken concept
> because it can cause btree inconsistancies and should probably be
> removed anyway.

I had forgotten the btree argument, actually ... thanks for reminding
me!

I think it's too late to do anything about this for 7.1, in any case,
but I'll put removing CURRENT back on the front burner for 7.2.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Samplonius 2000-12-08 02:11:29 Re: Patches with vacuum fixes available for 7.0.x
Previous Message Alfred Perlstein 2000-12-08 01:19:58 Re: Patches with vacuum fixes available for 7.0.x