Re: Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions
Date: 2009-03-05 18:48:25
Message-ID: 1236278905.24607.7.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 11:27 -0700, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> I've recently run into a problem with a datatype whose operators are
> based on functions not marked IMMUTABLE. Although there might be good
> reasons to have such a thing, it seems like it might be a valuable
> warning message if you create an operator based on an non-IMMUTABLE
> function. Comments?
>

When I do:

select oprname, oprcode, provolatile from pg_operator , pg_proc where
pg_proc.oid::regclass = oprcode and provolatile <> 'i';

There are a bunch of operators related to TIMESTAMPTZ and full text
search that are marked as STABLE.

I don't know what the guidelines are for using a WARNING, but the
examples that come to mind are generally things that can be fixed. For
instance, if you get a WARNING for using non-standard backslash escapes,
you can fix it by using E''.

However, I agree that forgetting to mark functions correctly is a pretty
significant problem.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-05 19:10:36 Re: Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions
Previous Message Joshua Tolley 2009-03-05 18:27:29 Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions