-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can immagine a case when a lower module exports a view to upper layer
stating
the interface as list of fields:
first_name, last_name,
with an *hidden* field that is a function
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ 8.2 evaluates volatile functions in the targetlist of a view ]
If I mark the function as STABLE or IMMUTABLE then even with version
8.2 the function is not
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is really this what we want? I did a migration 8.0.x = 8.2.3 and I had on
first hour of service up
lot of queries blocked due to this, consider in my case I have on v_ta
milions of records and usually
that join extracts 1 row.
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
Most people figured it was a improvment. It's configured per function
now, which wasn't the case before. I dont't think there was ever any
discussion about having a global switch.
Volatile functions that are not at the top level of a query are
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is really this what we want? I did a migration 8.0.x = 8.2.3 and I had on
first hour of service up
lot of queries blocked due to this, consider in my case I have on v_ta
milions of records and
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is really this what we want? I did a migration 8.0.x = 8.2.3 and I had on
first hour of service up
lot of queries blocked due to this, consider in my case I have on v_ta
milions of records and
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is really this what we want? I did a migration 8.0.x = 8.2.3 and I had on
first hour of service up
lot of queries blocked due to this, consider in my case I have on v_ta
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is really this what we want? I did a migration 8.0.x = 8.2.3 and I
had on first hour of service up
lot of queries blocked due to this, consider in my
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is really this what we want? I did a migration 8.0.x = 8.2.3 and I
had on first hour of service up
lot of queries blocked due to this, consider in my case I have on
v_ta
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can immagine a case when a lower module exports a view to upper layer
stating
the interface as list of fields:
first_name, last_name,
with an *hidden* field that is a function call that updates the statistics on
how many time a given record
Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ 8.2 evaluates volatile functions in the targetlist of a view ]
If I mark the function as STABLE or IMMUTABLE then even with version
8.2 the function is not evaluated. Is this the intended behavior?
Yes; people complained that we
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ 8.2 evaluates volatile functions in the targetlist of a view ]
If I mark the function as STABLE or IMMUTABLE then even with version
8.2 the function is not evaluated. Is this the intended behavior?
Yes; people complained that we needed to be more
12 matches
Mail list logo
