Re: PostgreSQL Gotchas

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:29:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, it's surely legitimate material as a "gotcha". The example is
> taken from
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-11/msg01375.php
> and the "previous discussion" referred to is this thread:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-10/msg00082.php
>
> As you can see, there wasn't a lot of agreement that we ought to change
> it. Arguably, if we did change it we'd get ripped for the "gotcha" of
> poor optimization when the user forgets to mark nonvolatile functions
> properly. (Personally, though, I'm in favor of tightening it up.)

Aren't there a good number of performance issues if you mis-mark a
function?

In any case, ISTM it'd be much better to perform poorly rather than give
bad/wrong results. I don't really see much dissention there, so I'd vote
for making the change for 8.2.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461