Re: [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Noah Misch <noah(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 2
Date: 2011-07-08 15:54:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZC0Z0Q92eyY6hVQQ1cYHgttZ89rKYAyNitCuMM7QTrGA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> IMHO the situation from DBA's point of view is exactly opposite. Option two
> requires deep knowledge of this leaky views issue. The DBA needs to inspect
> any function he wants to mark as leak-free closely, and understand that
> innocent-looking things like casts can cause leaks. That is not feasible in
> practice. Option 1, however, requires no such knowledge. Operators used in
> indexes are already expected to not throw errors, or you would get errors
> when inserting certain values to the table, for example.

But, IMHO, the chance of the DBA wanting to set this flag is
miniscule. I think that 99.9% of DBAs will be perfectly happy to just
use whatever set we mark as built-ins. And an explicit pg_proc flag
gives us a lot more flexibility.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2011-07-08 15:56:45 Re: Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-07-08 15:44:56 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ.