Re: ltree::text not immutable?

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> An alternative that just occurred to me is to put the no-volatile-
>> I/O-functions check into CREATE TYPE, but make it just WARNING not
>> ERROR. That would be nearly as good as an ERROR in terms of nudging
>> people who'd accidentally omitted a volatility marking from their
>> custom types. But we could leave chkpass as-is and wait to see if
>> anyone complains "hey, why am I getting this warning?". If we don't
>> hear anyone complaining, maybe that means we can get away with changing
>> the type's behavior in 9.6 or later.
>
> Attached is a complete patch along these lines. As I suggested earlier,
> this just makes the relevant changes in ltree--1.0.sql and
> pg_trgm--1.1.sql without bumping their extension version numbers,
> since it doesn't seem important enough to justify a version bump.
>
> I propose that we could back-patch the immutability-additions in ltree and
> pg_trgm, since they won't hurt anything and might make life a little
> easier for future adopters of those modules. The WARNING additions should
> only go into HEAD though.

I don't understand why you went to all the trouble of building a
versioning system for extensions if you're not going to use it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company