Re: Should we document how column DEFAULT expressions work?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we document how column DEFAULT expressions work? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bff385a9-adba-4516-8164-a1239f2f002a@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we document how column DEFAULT expressions work? (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we document how column DEFAULT expressions work?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01.07.24 01:54, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 23:57, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: >> Maybe we should really be thinking about deprecating these special >> values and steering users more urgently toward more robust alternatives. >> >> Imagine if 'random' were a valid input value for numeric types. > > I think there are valid reasons to use the special timestamp input > values. One that I can think of is for use with partition pruning. If > you have a time-range partitioned table and want the planner to prune > the partitions rather than the executor, you could use > 'now'::timestamp in your queries to allow the planner to prune. Yeah, but is that a good user interface? Or is that just something that happens to work now with the pieces that happened to be there, rather than a really designed interface? Hypothetically, what would need to be done to make this work with now() or current_timestamp or something similar? Do we need a new stability level that somehow encompasses this behavior, so that the function call can be evaluated at planning time? > That > works providing that you never use that in combination with PREPARE > and never put the query with the WHERE clause inside a VIEW. And this kind of thing obviously makes this interface even worse.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: