Re: auditing in postgresql

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Merlin Moncure
Тема
Re: auditing in postgresql
Дата
Msg-id
b42b73150708311342x29eee73fh94b3e39a0d80ffa6@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
auditing in postgresql Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: auditing in postgresql "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Re: auditing in postgresql Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
On 8/31/07, Tom Lane  wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure"  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
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: auditing in postgresql
От: Jeff Davis
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: auditing in postgresql
FAQ