| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com, thom(at)linux(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.2] LEAKPROOF attribute of FUNCTION (Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem) |
| Date: | 2012-02-14 03:44:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob4V-rvKyP2Pi+_QSqfFhpOGS1pNJ+CdQV36cVrmyJVpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> I rebased the patch due to the updates of pg_proc.h.
>
> Please see the newer one. Thanks,
Thanks, committed. I think, though, that some further adjustment is
needed here, because you currently can't do ALTER FUNCTION ... NO
LEAKPROOF, which seems unacceptable. It's fairly clear why not,
though: you get a grammar conflict, because the parser allows this:
create or replace function z() returns int as $$select 1$$ language
sql set transaction not deferrable;
However, since that syntax doesn't actually work, I'm thinking we
could just refactor things a bit to reject that at the parser stage.
The attached patch adopts that approach. Anyone have a better idea?
I also think we ought to stick create_function_3 into one of the
parallel groups in the regression tests, if possible. Can you
investigate that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| not-leakproof.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shigeru Hanada | 2012-02-14 06:15:54 | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
| Previous Message | Dan Ports | 2012-02-14 02:57:12 | SSI rw-conflicts and 2PC |