Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan on zero-parameters function

2004-02-06 Thread Tom Lane
Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not entirely clear to me why this form is different from the other form > though. The code that checks for expressions containing unstable functions doesn't look inside sub-selects. Arguably this is a bug, but people were relying on that behavior

Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan on zero-parameters function

2004-02-06 Thread Richard Huxton
On Friday 06 February 2004 07:19, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > Hi! > >I'd like to know if this is expected behavior. These are two couples of > queries. In each couple, the first one has a WHERE field = function() > condition, just like the second one, but in the form WHERE field = > (SELECT functi

Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan on zero-parameters function

2004-02-06 Thread Octavio Alvarez
Tomasz Myrta said: > Dnia 2004-02-06 08:19, U¿ytkownik Octavio Alvarez napisa³: >> In each couple, the first one has a WHERE field = function() >> condition, just like the second one, but in the form WHERE field = >> (SELECT function()). In my opinion, both should have the same execution >> plan,

[PERFORM] Seq scan on zero-parameters function

2004-02-06 Thread Octavio Alvarez
Hi! I'd like to know if this is expected behavior. These are two couples of queries. In each couple, the first one has a WHERE field = function() condition, just like the second one, but in the form WHERE field = (SELECT function()). In my opinion, both should have the same execution plan, as t