Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?
Date: 2006-08-13 22:51:04
Message-ID: 8468.1155509464@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> There's been some talk about prohibiting flattening if there are any
>>> volatile functions in the subselect's targetlist, but nothing's been
>>> done about that.

> BTW, can you think in a good name for a GUC for this?

I'm not in favor of a GUC for this; we should either do it or not.

If we do it, basically the response to anyone who complains about loss
of performance should be "fix your function to be marked stable or
immutable, as appropriate".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-13 23:01:13 Re: segfault on rollback
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-08-13 22:47:37 Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib