On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> BTW, the situation on the input side is a bit different: record_in is
>> volatile because domain_in is, and I think we'd better leave that alone
>> since it's not too hard to believe that a domain might have volatile
>> CHECK expressions. If we had arrays of domains, anyarray_in would have
>> to be volatile too, but we don't and it isn't.
> Oh, wait: we have arrays of composites now, and a composite could
> contain a domain. So that's wrong too; anyarray_in had better be marked
> volatile. In general it seems that the coding rules need to be:
> * if you depend on an arbitrary type output function, assume it's stable.
> * if you depend on an arbitrary type input function, assume it's volatile.
> * similarly for binary send/receive functions.
> Or we could decide that volatile domain CHECK expressions are un-sensible
> and just relabel all these input functions as stable, which would make
> everything consistent. Thoughts?
Aren't volatile CHECK expressions pretty un-sensible in general?
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Vincenzo Romano||Date: 2010-07-29 17:08:52|
|Subject: On Scalability|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-29 17:04:55|
|Subject: Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1|