| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: leakproof |
| Date: | 2012-02-21 15:52:46 |
| Message-ID: | 15620.1329839566@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 2012-02-20 at 01:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> For the present application (pushdown into security views), we really
>> only care whether the function has side effects, such as throwing an
>> error or mutating global state.
> How about [NO] SIDEEFFECTS?
Well, that's already stated to be one of the requirements for being
immutable or stable, so I think we need a term that's a bit stronger.
The real issue here is that the notion of what is a side effect is
much much broader than what we have used in the past. I don't think
we clarify that by continuing to use the same term "side effect".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-02-21 16:02:29 | Re: leakproof |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-21 15:40:45 | Re: leakproof |