Re: A question of volatility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean_rasheed(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A question of volatility
Date: 2007-11-25 17:51:38
Message-ID: 18218.1196013098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

Dean Rasheed <dean_rasheed(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> My reason for asking is that some languages maintain a dependency tree
> of functions, and so could in theory do something clever with
> dependent functions - such as distinguishing between *declared* and
> *derived* volatility.

That might be possible in a system that only supports statically
analyzable functions, but Postgres is not such a system. Consider
EXECUTE in plpgsql, or anything at all in plperl or pltcl.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message roody senecal 2007-11-26 02:23:08 Update field value
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2007-11-25 10:09:57 Re: A question of volatility