Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS

KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> writes:
> (2010/06/04 11:55), Robert Haas wrote:
>> A (very) important part of this problem is determining which quals are
>> safe to push down.
>> 
> At least, I don't have an idea to distinguish trusted functions from
> others without any additional hints, because we support variable kind
> of PL languages. :(

The proposal some time back in this thread was to trust all built-in
functions and no others.  That's a bit simplistic, no doubt, but it
seems to me to largely solve the performance problem and to do so with
minimal effort.  When and if you get to a solution that's committable
with respect to everything else, it might be time to think about
more flexible answers to that particular point.
        regards, tom lane