From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Function result cacheing - any comments? |
Date: | 2002-08-19 13:46:50 |
Message-ID: | 6322.1029764810@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> My theory is that if such a piece of code gets a performance gain, then the
> code is probably worth including, assuming that the function manager does
> not need to be butchered to achieve the desired goal. Does that sound
> reasonable?
Some real results would certainly bolster your case.
> So the obvious question is - in the opinion of people who know the code,
> can a function-result-cache be implemented with a lifetime of a single
> statement, without butchering the function manager?
I'd suggest trying to make it a function call handler. Look at the way
Peter did "SECURITY DEFINER" functions for inspiration.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-19 13:53:50 | Re: set search_path failure |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-08-19 09:34:53 | Re: Inheritance |