On 27 April 2015 at 17:33, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Dean,
>
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I took another look at this and came up with some alternate comment
>> rewording. I also added a couple of additional comments that should
>> hopefully clarify the code a bit.
>
> Finall
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I took another look at this and came up with some alternate comment
> rewording. I also added a couple of additional comments that should
> hopefully clarify the code a bit.
Finally got back to this. Made a few additional changes that made
I took another look at this and came up with some alternate comment
rewording. I also added a couple of additional comments that should
hopefully clarify the code a bit.
Regards,
Dean
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c b/src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c
new file mode 100644
in
On 1 March 2015 at 18:23, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Thanks. Do you want me to post an update, or are you going to hack on it?
>
> Either works for me, though I'm happy to handle the modifications to
> this if it means you have time to look at the other patches.. :)
>
OK, I'll continue testing the o
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Thanks for looking at this.
Thanks for working on it. :)
> On 28 February 2015 at 04:25, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> --- 1318,1347
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> /***
Thanks for looking at this.
On 28 February 2015 at 04:25, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Dean,
>
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that does that, allowing restriction clause quals
>> to be pushed down into subquery RTEs if they contain leaky functions,
>> provided
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Attached is a patch that does that, allowing restriction clause quals
> to be pushed down into subquery RTEs if they contain leaky functions,
> provided that the arglists of those leaky functions contain no Vars
> (such Vars would necessaril
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Dean Rasheed
> > wrote:
> > > On 14 January 2015 at 13:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> One thing they could still leak is the number of times they got
> > >> called, and thus possibly the n
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> > On 14 January 2015 at 13:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> One thing they could still leak is the number of times they got
> >> called, and thus possibly the number of unseen rows. Now if the
> >> expressions get constant
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 13:29, Robert Haas wrote:
>> One thing they could still leak is the number of times they got
>> called, and thus possibly the number of unseen rows. Now if the
>> expressions get constant-folded away that won't be an is
On 14 January 2015 at 13:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> One thing they could still leak is the number of times they got
> called, and thus possibly the number of unseen rows. Now if the
> expressions get constant-folded away that won't be an issue, but a
> clever user can probably avoid that.
>
Right
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> A while ago [1] I proposed an enhancement to the way qual pushdown
> safety is decided in RLS / security barrier views. Currently we just
> test for the presence of leaky functions in the qual, but it is
> possible to do better than that, by fu
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> A while ago [1] I proposed an enhancement to the way qual pushdown
> safety is decided in RLS / security barrier views. Currently we just
> test for the presence of leaky functions in the qual, but it is
> possible to do better than that, by
A while ago [1] I proposed an enhancement to the way qual pushdown
safety is decided in RLS / security barrier views. Currently we just
test for the presence of leaky functions in the qual, but it is
possible to do better than that, by further testing if the leaky
function is actually being passed
14 matches
Mail list logo
