Re: auditing in postgresql
| От | Merlin Moncure |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: auditing in postgresql |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | b42b73150708311342x29eee73fh94b3e39a0d80ffa6@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: auditing in postgresql (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: auditing in postgresql
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On 8/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > > At present, immutable functions are only treated as constants during a > > query, which is what we want (no problems with prepare). > > Uh, no, they'd be folded to constants at plan time, which is exactly > what Jeff doesn't want AFAICS. yikes! I did test this before I posted that, but I oversimplified it: I didn't move the func() to the where clause...do the subselect version defined as volatile seems the way to go. unfortunately this means you pay a small extra price for large result sets. merlin
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: