| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: function side effects |
| Date: | 2010-02-23 15:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4B83A292020000250002F503@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Those classifications are meant as planner directives; they are
> NOT meant to be bulletproof. Hanging database integrity
> guarantees on whether a "non volatile" function changes anything
> is entirely unsafe. To give just one illustration of the
> problems, a nonvolatile function is allowed to call a volatile
> one.
Could it work to store a flag in each process to indicate when it is
executing a non-volatile function, and throw an error on any attempt
to call a volatile function or modify the database?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-02-23 15:59:10 | Re: pretty print viewdefs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-23 15:38:53 | Re: [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Speed up CREATE DATABASE by deferring the fsyncs until after |