Tom, > As for the dependency issue, one man's bug is another man's feature. > I think the fact that we don't track the internal dependencies of > functions is not all bad. We've certainly seen plenty of complaints > about how you can't easily change tables that a view is depending on > because the view dependencies block it...
I'd agree with this. I write about 150,000 lines of function code a year, and if I had to rebuild all of the cascading functions every time I change a table they way I have to with views, it would probably add 20% to my overall application development time. BTW, the other thing that we're still TODOing on SRFs (as far as I know) is finding ways to change the row estimate for an SRF. It's still a flat 1000 in the code, which can cause a lot of bad query plans. I proposed a year ago that, as a first step, we allow the function owner to assign a static estimate variable to the function (i.e. "average rows returned = 5'). This doesn't solve the whole problem of SRF estimates but it would be a significant step forwards in being able to use them in queries. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
