On 10/8/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > but this example seems to clarify (or at least i think) that we have to > avoid > > pulling up subquerys containing volatile functions: > > This is exactly the same example discussed in previous threads on this > issue. Do you think it will change anyone's mind? > > regards, tom lane >
you are right, i haven't internet all day this week so i'm reading mails for parts... 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??? BTW, i still wanna get a patch for my postgres... so i will keep trying... but i don't understand why when i add the function contain_volatile_functions in the is_simple_subquery function i got the same results... :) -- regards, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
