| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Date: | 2012-01-31 01:41:17 |
| Message-ID: | 22487.1327974077@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> We can't have functions which are immutable or not depending on their
>> inputs. That way lies madness.
> but this is exactly what's happening now.
Well, the current marking is clearly incorrect. What to do about that
is a bit less clear --- should we downgrade the marking, or change the
function's behavior so that it really is immutable?
I haven't formed an opinion on that myself, other than to think that
it's something that requires more than a moment's thought.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 02:49:29 | Re: list blocking queries |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2012-01-31 00:12:40 | Re: parameter "vacuum_defer_cleanup_age" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-01-31 02:59:31 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 01:22:32 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |