| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY and Volatile default expressions |
| Date: | 2013-04-15 19:52:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYunLHaD66QX2J58YQmj58RFuOMDzp-a_guMzfbbPP3=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I claim this is a common class, since sequence next_val functions and
>> uuid generators meet that criteria and most common forms of auditing
>> trigger, as well as any other form of data-reformatting trigger.
>
> I don't believe that it's a good idea to consider nextval() to be
> reorderable, so I'm not convinced by your argument here.
Why not?
I admit that I can't convince myself that it's safe. But I can't
think of a concrete example where it breaks anything, either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rodrigo Barboza | 2013-04-15 20:08:04 | Query not using index for user defined type |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-04-15 18:27:37 | Re: COPY and Volatile default expressions |