Re: auditing in postgresql - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: auditing in postgresql
Date
Msg-id b42b73150708311342x29eee73fh94b3e39a0d80ffa6@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auditing in postgresql  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: auditing in postgresql  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 8/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> > At present, immutable functions are only treated as constants during a
> > query, which is what we want (no problems with prepare).
>
> Uh, no, they'd be folded to constants at plan time, which is exactly
> what Jeff doesn't want AFAICS.

yikes! I did test this before I posted that, but I oversimplified it:
I didn't move the func() to the where clause...do the subselect
version defined as volatile seems the way to go.  unfortunately this
means you pay a small extra price for large result sets.

merlin

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: auditing in postgresql