| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Calculated view fields (8.1 != 8.2) |
| Date: | 2007-03-09 15:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | 29268.1173453867@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Most people figured it was a improvment. It's configured per function
> now, which wasn't the case before. I dont't think there was ever any
> discussion about having a global switch.
Volatile functions that are not at the top level of a query are *always*
going to be a risk factor, in that you don't know quite where the
planner is going to evaluate them. While I'm not by any means wedded to
the 8.2 no-flattening patch, it seems to me to be reasonable because it
reduces that uncertainty a bit. The fact that Gaetano's code depended
on the uncertainty being resolved in a different direction is
unfortunate, but I think his code is really to blame, because postponing
the function eval like that couldn't be guaranteed anyway across all
queries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-09 15:34:04 | Re: Calculated view fields (8.1 != 8.2) |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2007-03-09 15:20:28 | Re: who gets paid for this |