From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: leakproof |
Date: | 2012-02-27 00:34:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZvCmObG4D6bxj7rO7qLMvcgkmdQ3BUiyF=2+CLaxH-NA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM, A.M. <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> wrote:
> If you are willing to go full length, then the computer science term is "referential transparency", no?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_(computer_science)
>
> So a function could be described as "REFERENTIALLY TRANSPARENT".
Hmm, I think that's very close to what we're looking for. It might be
slightly stronger, in that it could conceivably be OK for a leakproof
function to read, but not modify, global variables... but I can't
think of any particular reason why we'd want to allow that case.
OTOH, it seems to imply that referential transparency is a property of
expressions built from pure functions, and since what we're labeling
here are functions, that brings us right back to PURE.
I'm thinking we should go with PURE. I still can't think of any real
use case for pushing down anything other than an immutable function,
and I think that immutable + no-side-effects = pure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-27 01:23:16 | Re: leakproof |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-27 00:10:03 | Re: Misleading CREATE TABLE error |