| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
| Date: | 2007-10-09 15:32:19 |
| Message-ID: | 470B9F03.9010206@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>
> I think you're overly pessimistic here ;-) This classification can be
> done quite efficiently as long as your language is "static enough".
> The trick is not to execute the function, but to scan the code to find
> all other functions and SQL statements a given function may possibly
> call. If your function calls no SQL statements, and only other
> functions already marked IMMUTABLE, then it must be IMMUTABLE itself.
>
> It does seem that only pl/pgsql is "static enough" for this to work,
> though,
> making this idea rather unappealing.
>
>
How would you propose to analyse C functions, for which you might not
have the C code?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2007-10-09 15:36:19 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-10-09 15:28:56 | Re: ECPG regression tests |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2007-10-09 15:36:19 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-10-09 15:22:50 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |