Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: string_to_array has to be stable?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: string_to_array has to be stable?
Date: 2010-07-29 17:06:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

Robert Haas
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Vincenzo RomanoDate: 2010-07-29 17:08:52
Subject: On Scalability
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-29 17:04:55
Subject: Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group