Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis
Date: 2026-06-27 18:04:22
Message-ID: 1320174.1782583462@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wonder whether contain_volatile_functions_after_planning
and its sibling contain_mutable_functions_after_planning
shouldn't be documented to warn against this sort of misuse.

Ideally we'd not have them at all because of the TOCTOU hazard.
The remaining callers are in DDL callers like generated-column
creation and expression-index creation, where we basically just
have to trust that users won't redefine their functions later.
But we don't want developers putting such calls into places that
are any further upstream of execution than they have to be.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Tatsuya Kawata 2026-06-27 17:50:38 Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision