| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE is not allowed in a non-volatile function |
| Date: | 2004-11-01 20:19:52 |
| Message-ID: | 24622.1099340392@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> The fact that a non-volatile function can not perform
> update is a good improvement but on the other side will
> limit too much if I know what I'm doing.
I've got zero sympathy for this argument. It's been documented right
along that functions with side-effects must be marked volatile. You
don't have a lot of room to complain because 8.0 started to enforce that.
In practice you can circumvent the restriction by splitting the
function in two (ie, there is no check that a nonvolatile function
doesn't call any volatile functions). So if you insist on sticking
with an unsafe application design, you can do it with relatively
localized changes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-01 20:24:56 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-11-01 20:04:26 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |