Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile
Date: 2016-06-03 14:41:51
Message-ID: CAA-aLv75MiNgS-1c0L_NQfBMMigcrubDWbETOXnV2xZm6K1WjA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3 June 2016 at 15:26, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> > ...or at least according to the warning message:
>> > postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ;
>> > WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile
>>
>> See thread here:
>>
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACfv%2BpL2oX08SSZSoaHpyC%3DUbfTFmPt4UmVEKJTH7y%3D2QMRCBw%40mail.gmail.com
>>
>> Given the lack of complaints so far, maybe we could think about redefining
>> the behavior of chkpass_in. I'm not very sure to what, though.
>>
>
> Thom, how did you end up encountering this?
>

I built the extension and tried to create it. Not really anything other
than that.

Thom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2016-06-03 14:44:49 Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile
Previous Message Noah Misch 2016-06-03 14:32:24 Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates)