On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > IMHO the situation from DBA's point of view is exactly opposite. Option two > requires deep knowledge of this leaky views issue. The DBA needs to inspect > any function he wants to mark as leak-free closely, and understand that > innocent-looking things like casts can cause leaks. That is not feasible in > practice. Option 1, however, requires no such knowledge. Operators used in > indexes are already expected to not throw errors, or you would get errors > when inserting certain values to the table, for example.
But, IMHO, the chance of the DBA wanting to set this flag is miniscule. I think that 99.9% of DBAs will be perfectly happy to just use whatever set we mark as built-ins. And an explicit pg_proc flag gives us a lot more flexibility. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
