On 10/8/05, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <[email protected]> writes:
> > but this example seems to clarify (or at least i think) that we have to
> avoid
> > pulling up subquerys containing volatile functions:
>
> This is exactly the same example discussed in previous threads on this
> issue. Do you think it will change anyone's mind?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
you are right, i haven't internet all day this week so i'm reading
mails for parts...
in any case, i still think that is better to get bad performance
because i forgot to correctly mark a function that to get incorrect
data from a correct query because a "gotcha"... there is a precedent
for this in postgres???
BTW, i still wanna get a patch for my postgres... so i will keep
trying... but i don't understand why when i add the function
contain_volatile_functions in the is_simple_subquery function i got
the same results... :)
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)
