Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions
Date: 2022-10-02 01:05:55
Message-ID: 20221002010555.oytonheysherams6@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2022-06-16 12:04:12 -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Of course this patch is still very WIP. Only one or the other function
> makes sense to keep. And I'm not opposed to having a GUC to
> enable/disable the enforcement or warnings. And the code itself needs
> to be cleaned up with parts of it moving to guc.c and/or namespace.c.

This currently obviously doesn't pass tests - are you planning to work on this
further? As is I'm not really clear what the CF entry is for. Given the
current state it doesn't look like it's actually looking for review?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-10-02 01:21:15 Re: Eliminating SPI from RI triggers - take 2
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-10-02 01:01:53 Re: TAP output format in pg_regress