On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>> If you got mixed up with plpgsql anyway what is the reason of making
>> this WITH query constructions instead of implementing everything in a
>> plpgsql trigger on DELETE on exp then?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. "exp" isn't a table, it's a WITH CTE. The
Sorry, I meant "item" of course, "exp" was a typo.
> statement is deleting some entries from "item", and replacing some of
> them with new entries, based on the information in the "item_expired"
> view. I can't do anything with a trigger on "item", since there are
> other circumstances where items are deleted that shouldn't trigger
> replacement.
Okay, I see.
If the case is specific you can make a simple plpgsql function that
will process it like FOR _row IN DELETE ... RETORNING * LOOP ...
RETURN NEXT _row; END LOOP;
> select *
> from (select j.type, random() r from item j) i
> where i.type = 1
>
> the planner will transform it into
>
> select i.type, random() r
> from item i
> where i.type = 1
>
> before planning, so even though random() is volatile it will only get
> called for rows of item with type = 1.
Yes, functions are executed depending on the resulting plan "A query
using a volatile function will re-evaluate the function at every row
where its value is needed".
> I don't know if this happens, or may sometimes happen, or might happen
> in the future, for rows eliminated because of DISTINCT.
It is a good point. Nothing guarantees it in a perspective. Optimizer
guarantees a stable result but not the way it is reached.
--
Sergey Konoplev
Database and Software Architect
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
Phones:
USA +1 415 867 9984
Russia, Moscow +7 901 903 0499
Russia, Krasnodar +7 988 888 1979
Skype: gray-hemp
Jabber: gray.ru@gmail.com