Re: avoid pulling up subquerys that contain volatile functions? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jaime Casanova
Subject Re: avoid pulling up subquerys that contain volatile functions?
Date
Msg-id c2d9e70e0510111334p5b969dbdt5ba6072dc3546c15@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: avoid pulling up subquerys that contain volatile functions?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/9/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <systemguards@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 10/8/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> This is exactly the same example discussed in previous threads on this
> >> issue.  Do you think it will change anyone's mind?
>
> > in any case, i still think that is better to get bad performance
> > because i forgot to correctly mark a function that to get incorrect
> > data from a correct query because a "gotcha"... there is a precedent
> > for this in postgres???
>
> Just to be clear, I'm in favor of changing it; but the majority opinion
> in the previous discussion seemed to be against.
>
>[snipped some interesting explanation about this]
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

Maybe, document it? even with an example? and the workaround of course

--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: slower merge join on sorted data chosen over