From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 17:20:20 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin2WPwx91P7xnwpet_k63H1Hm3GAzCwaouyUO_7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>> Aren't volatile CHECK expressions pretty un-sensible in general?
>
> Yeah, probably so. I can't think of a use-case that seems like it would
> justify the possible performance hit from having to assume all functions
> performing datatype input calls are volatile.
That's my thought, too. Any non-immutable CHECK constraint is
basically playing with fire, to some degree. But a stable check
constraint is at least playing with it somewhat responsibly, whereas a
volatile check constraint strikes me as more like doing it while
bathing in turpentine.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vincenzo Romano | 2010-07-29 17:34:20 | Re: On Scalability |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-29 17:20:06 | Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1 |