| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Date: | 2012-01-31 03:07:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4F275B08.4010503@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> We can't have functions which are immutable or not depending on their
>>> inputs. That way lies madness.
>
>> but this is exactly what's happening now.
>
> Well, the current marking is clearly incorrect. What to do about that
> is a bit less clear --- should we downgrade the marking, or change the
> function's behavior so that it really is immutable?
AFAIK, the only case which is NOT immutable is extract(epoch FROM
timestamp without time zone), no?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick | 2012-01-31 03:55:33 | Help speeding up a left join aggregate |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 02:49:29 | Re: list blocking queries |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2012-01-31 03:56:47 | Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-01-31 02:59:31 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |