Hi, On 2020-07-23 16:56:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Hm. Would SQL function inlining be a problem? It looks like that just > > substitutes parameters. Before calling > > eval_const_expressions_mutator(). So we'd not know not to evaluate such > > "pseudo constants". And that'd probably be confusing, especially > > because it's not exactly obvious when inlining happens. > > Hm, interesting question. I think it might be all right without any > further hacking, because the parameters we care about substituting > would have been handled (or not) before inlining. But the interactions > would be ticklish, and surely worthy of a test case or three.
I'm a bit worried about a case like: SELECT foo(17); CREATE FUNCTION yell(int, int) RETURNS int IMMUTABLE LANGUAGE SQL AS $$ SELECT CASE WHEN $1 != 0 THEN 17 / $2 ELSE NULL END $$; EXPLAIN SELECT yell(g.i, 0) FROM generate_series(1, 10) g(i); I don't think the parameters here would have been handled before inlining, right? Greetings, Andres Freund
