From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: string_to_array has to be stable? |
Date: | 2010-07-29 17:00:13 |
Message-ID: | 27031.1280422813@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> BTW, the situation on the input side is a bit different: record_in is
> volatile because domain_in is, and I think we'd better leave that alone
> since it's not too hard to believe that a domain might have volatile
> CHECK expressions. If we had arrays of domains, anyarray_in would have
> to be volatile too, but we don't and it isn't.
Oh, wait: we have arrays of composites now, and a composite could
contain a domain. So that's wrong too; anyarray_in had better be marked
volatile. In general it seems that the coding rules need to be:
* if you depend on an arbitrary type output function, assume it's stable.
* if you depend on an arbitrary type input function, assume it's volatile.
* similarly for binary send/receive functions.
Or we could decide that volatile domain CHECK expressions are un-sensible
and just relabel all these input functions as stable, which would make
everything consistent. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-29 17:04:55 | Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1 |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-07-29 16:37:45 | Re: string_to_array has to be stable? |