On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Please forgive if this is a repost.
Please find attached patch for supporting ORDER BY clause in CREATE
FUNCTION for SRFs.
Hi Atri,
From the discussion, I don't know if this patch is still being proposed.
If
On 06-01-2015 PM 04:26, Atri Sharma wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
Though, I have no strong opinion on whether one thing is good or the
other or whether they cover some particular use case all the same.
Perhaps you can say that
On 1/6/15, 1:00 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Even checking whether the output of the function is in the right order or not,
has its cost. I am suggesting that we can eliminate this cost as well. For
example, PostgreSQL does not check whether a function is really immutable or
not.
Actually, it
On 07-01-2015 AM 08:33, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/6/15, 1:00 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Even checking whether the output of the function is in the right order
or not, has its cost. I am suggesting that we can eliminate this cost
as well. For example, PostgreSQL does not check whether a function is
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
I will add the patch to current commitfest.
It has been indeed added to the commit fest 2014-12. That's a bit
late, moving it to upcoming one 2015-02.
Thanks,
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Not in all cases
postgres=# create function non_im_immutable_function() returns float as $$
begin
return *random()*;
end;
$$ language plpgsql *immutable*;
CREATE FUNCTION
postgres=# select proname, provolatile from pg_proc where proname =
'random' or proname = 'non_im_immutable_function';
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Please forgive if this is a repost.
Please find attached patch for supporting ORDER BY clause in CREATE
FUNCTION for SRFs. Specifically:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION func1(OUT e int, OUT f int) returns setof
The overhead of this patch is small. A new path is added for the preorder
keys, and OrderCheck node's additional cost is pretty low, given that it
only compares two rows and stores only a single row (previous row seen),
hence the memory footprint is minuscule.
We can eliminate the new
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
The overhead of this patch is small. A new path is added for the
preorder keys, and OrderCheck node's additional cost is pretty low, given
that it only compares two rows and stores only a single row (previous row
seen),
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
On 06-01-2015 PM 04:00, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com
wrote:
We can eliminate the new node and put onus or having the right order on
the user like
On 06-01-2015 PM 04:00, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
We can eliminate the new node and put onus or having the right order on
the user like we do with volatile setting of the function.
That is exactly what the new node does,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Even checking whether the output of the function is in the right order
or not, has its cost. I am suggesting that we can
Hi All,
Please forgive if this is a repost.
Please find attached patch for supporting ORDER BY clause in CREATE
FUNCTION for SRFs. Specifically:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION func1(OUT e int, OUT f int) returns setof record
as ' SELECT a,b FROM table1 ORDER BY a; ' language 'sql' ORDER BY e;
This
13 matches
Mail list logo
