| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RULE vs. SEQUENCE |
| Date: | 2000-09-04 11:01:14 |
| Message-ID: | 39B380FA.F2903F94@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Karel Zak wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > > I have a question... why RULE call nexval() and data in RULE statement are
> > > differend than data in original stmt.
> >
...
>
> But executor can knows that somethig was already executed, we can mark
> some already executed expressions in rewriter and not execute it again in
> final executor... like:
...
>
> IMHO this is a good point for 7.2 ...
But if instead of nextval() you had random(), would you still want to execute
it
only once ? And how should postgres know ?
----------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karel Zak | 2000-09-04 11:16:45 | Re: RULE vs. SEQUENCE |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2000-09-04 10:09:40 | RULE vs. SEQUENCE |