Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: > On 28 December 2016 at 19:12, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> [ getting back to this patch finally... ] I made the suggested change >> to that test case, and what I see is a whole lot of "NOTICE: snooped value >> = whatever" outputs. >> >> I'd leave it as shown in the attached diff fragment, except that I'm >> a bit worried about possible platform dependency of the output. The >> hashing occurring in the subplans shouldn't affect output order, but >> I'm not sure if we want a test output like this or not. Thoughts?
> How about replacing "a = 3" with "a < 7 AND a != 6". That then > exercises more of the possible types of behaviour for quals: The "a < > 7" qual is pushed down and used as an index condition. The "a != 6" > qual is pushed down and used as a filter, because it's cheap and > leakproof. The leakproof() qual isn't pushed down on cost grounds. The > snoop() qual isn't pushed down on security grounds. Both snoop() and > leakproof() are used as filters, along with "a != 6", and a SB subplan > qual. "a != 6" is executed first because it has a security_level of 0, > and is cheaper than the subplan. snoop() is executed later, despite > being cheaper than the other filter quals, because it has a higher > security_level, and leakproof() is executed last because it has the > same security level as snoop() but is more expensive. Will do, although I think that the next test case (the one with "a = 8") already shows most of those behaviors. Maybe this one's just redundant and we should drop it? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers