| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Volker Grabsch <vog(at)notjusthosting(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Calculation of unused columns |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 17:58:24 |
| Message-ID: | 8460.1255975104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 13:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> I think we should have a 4th class of functions,
>>> volatile-without-side-effects (better name needed, obviously).
>>
>> What for? There wouldn't be that many, I think. random() and
>> clock_timestamp(), yeah, but most volatile user-defined functions
>> are either volatile-with-side-effects or misdeclared.
> Read only vs. read write?
Most read-only functions are stable or even immutable. I don't say
that there's zero usefulness in a fourth class, but I do say it's
unlikely to be worth the trouble. (The only reason it even came
up in this connection is that the default for user-defined functions
is "volatile" which would defeat this optimization ... but we could
hardly make the default anything else.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-19 18:05:27 | Re: Calculation of unused columns |
| Previous Message | Gerhard Wiesinger | 2009-10-19 17:54:45 | Re: Calculation of unused columns |