From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] indexes and floats |
Date: | 1998-08-06 05:59:48 |
Message-ID: | 35C94654.67FB6617@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This would be logical to me because we allow function creation.
> Consider, if someone creates an SQL function on a table being updated
> that returns a count of all rows who's index matches an int. Which
> would mean that an insert using that function to select rows could
> need to be evaluated for each row.
> Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current behavior
> could be desired/being used by someone.
As you point out, the current behavior allows functions with
side-effects to work, where if we change it then functions must be
side-effect-free. Most functions do not have side effects, though one
using the SPI interface for example might be prone to them.
We _could_ add a column attribute for each function which declares a
function as being "safe" or not.
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter T Mount | 1998-08-06 05:59:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names |
Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 1998-08-06 05:57:31 | Re: [HACKERS] CVS and the backend |