On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, David Johnston <pol...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Merlin Moncure-2 wrote >> Regardless, the point at hand is whether specific plan semantics down >> the chain can control whether or not volatile expressions should run. >> Clearly, at least to me, they should not. > > Put differently ideally this should be put either on the todo list or the > "we do not want" list and further inquiries can then go to building up > enough popular demand to convince someone to implement it. Maybe there > should be a "convince us" list? Not a todo yet but something still be > considered.
I would vote it as todo. > Keeping in mind that there are likely volatile queries relying on the > current optimization that would become non-optimized and possibly very > poorly performing. Since the "fix" for these would be a simple alter > function to make them stable the cost benefit seems worthwhile - since those > functions are probably mis-identified in the first place due to the use of > the default. Any reliance on that behavior would be wrong because it's expressly contraindicated by the documentation. TBH, If it were not specifically documented that way, I would be considering this to be bugged behavior. As for function mis-identification, fair point, but that's a general problem and not specifically related to CTE evaluation. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
