Message-ID: <8331d79b-1aa2-477b-ab43-0d72c4c49fbf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 05:25:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Volatile functions under Memoize node
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
References: <7ab4aac3-4790-416f-98b8-2ec0707cceb5@gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvopmkAOecfQczbOvkVvo=OK89rABXujVYsFevsk77Dqdw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAApHDvopmkAOecfQczbOvkVvo=OK89rABXujVYsFevsk77Dqdw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8331d79b-1aa2-477b-ab43-0d72c4c49fbf%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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