Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?

On 8/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "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.
>

me neither, the idea came because seems there wasn't enough
consensus... my opinion always was we have to return right results and
then think on performance...

if someone cares, this is the patch i use for avoiding pulling up of
subqueries containing volatile functions (at least it has worked for
me :)...

--
regards,
Jaime Casanova

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook