From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 05:25:49 +0200
Message-ID: <8331d79b-1aa2-477b-ab43-0d72c4c49fbf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvopmkAOecfQczbOvkVvo=OK89rABXujVYsFevsk77Dqdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7ab4aac3-4790-416f-98b8-2ec0707cceb5@gmail.com>
<CAApHDvopmkAOecfQczbOvkVvo=OK89rABXujVYsFevsk77Dqdw@mail.gmail.com>
On 20/9/2024 04:36, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 04:47, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Excuse me if I made noise in vain. After discovering the limits of the
>> Memoize node, I realized that volatile functions are allowed under the
>> Memoize.
> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to penalise your case when we're not
> all that consistent to start with. Is this causing some sort of
> breakage?
As I've said before, I just discovered the feature's limits and realised
that I don't actually understand the idea of volatility checking: even
in the get_memoize_path, we spend cycles checking the target list and
base restrictions for such functions. Is it necessary there?
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: lepihov@gmail.com, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, guofenglinux@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node
In-Reply-To: <8331d79b-1aa2-477b-ab43-0d72c4c49fbf@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox