| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node |
| Date: | 2024-09-20 03:25:49 |
| Message-ID: | 8331d79b-1aa2-477b-ab43-0d72c4c49fbf@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 20/9/2024 04:36, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 04:47, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Excuse me if I made noise in vain. After discovering the limits of the
>> Memoize node, I realized that volatile functions are allowed under the
>> Memoize.
> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to penalise your case when we're not
> all that consistent to start with. Is this causing some sort of
> breakage?
As I've said before, I just discovered the feature's limits and realised
that I don't actually understand the idea of volatility checking: even
in the get_memoize_path, we spend cycles checking the target list and
base restrictions for such functions. Is it necessary there?
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2024-09-20 08:46:03 | Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-09-20 02:36:47 | Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node |