Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node

On 20/9/2024 04:36, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 04:47, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to penalise your case when we're not
> all that consistent to start with.  Is this causing some sort of
> breakage?
I skimmed the code entries with such checks and found out that the 
initial reason was to avoid index scans, with a reason that such a 
routine should be applied to each tuple of the table.
The second reason - to postpone expression evaluation (9118d03) - is 
also reasonable for me. It was introduced to be consistent with the 
clause's syntactical level in the SQL.
It seems to follow the same idea as disabling subquery pull-ups: to 
avoid multiple evaluations and change the syntactical level.
At the same time, Material doesn't care about volatility. So, what was 
the idea behind the commit 990c365 you added?

-- 
regards, Andrei Lepikhov