Re: auditing in postgresql
От
Merlin Moncure
Тема
Re: auditing in postgresql
Дата
Msg-id
b42b73150708311342x29eee73fh94b3e39a0d80ffa6@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: auditing in postgresql (Tom Lane)
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