Re: 2 questions about volatile attribute of pg_proc.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 2 questions about volatile attribute of pg_proc.
Date: 2021-04-18 16:08:14
Message-ID: 7201.1618762094@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 11:36, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Are you familiar with the halting problem? I don't see any meaningful
>> difference here.

> I think what is being suggested is akin to type checking, not solving the
> halting problem.

Yeah, on further thought we'd be satisfied with a conservative
approximation, so that removes the theoretical-impossibility objection.
Still, there are a lot of remaining problems, as you note.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2021-04-18 16:27:01 Re: 2 questions about volatile attribute of pg_proc.
Previous Message Isaac Morland 2021-04-18 15:54:25 Re: 2 questions about volatile attribute of pg_proc.