Re: why pg_size_pretty is volatile?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why pg_size_pretty is volatile?
Date: 2016-01-26 01:00:36
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRgNH85o4wqSx826ojynvVaLBWyQKxpiQALhMEQZQwTKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy pointed on bug in my patch - a pg_size_bytes was VOLATILE
> function. It is copy/paste bug - I used pg_size_pretty definition, so the
> question is: why pg_size_pretty is volatile? It should be immutable too.

+1. This function relies only on the input of its argument to generate a result.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kouhei Kaigai 2016-01-26 01:06:46 Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c)
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-01-26 00:51:35 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.