On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
AFAIK, the only case which is NOT immutable is extract(epoch FROM
timestamp without time zone), no?
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ashutosh Bapat||Date: 2012-01-31 03:56:47|
|Subject: Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables|
|Previous:||From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||Date: 2012-01-31 02:59:31|
|Subject: Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Nick||Date: 2012-01-31 03:55:33|
|Subject: Help speeding up a left join aggregate|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-01-31 02:49:29|
|Subject: Re: list blocking queries |