Re: Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data into an index
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data into an index |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=nD4tWz_3KVtqZvUOt0eO5bKAu8dYVjiQqMGmg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data into an index (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data
into an index
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > *) also, isn't it possible to change text cast influencing GUCs 'n' > times per statement considering any query can call a function and any > function can say, change datestyle? Shouldn't the related functions > be marked 'volatile', not stable? This is just evil. It seems to me that we might want to instead prevent functions from changing things for their callers, or postponing any such changes until the end of the statement, or, uh, something. We can't afford to put ourselves in a situation of having to make everything volatile; at least, not if "performance" is anywhere in our top 50 goals. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: