From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions |
Date: | 2022-06-09 20:11:31 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmsnMXaVsuPwoHfBdNw3m1p+wfddhZoVADMw8xrQeAS-A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 12:39 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Generally I think the idea is that the user *is* responsible for
> writing immutable functions carefully to hide any non-deterministic
> behaviour from the code they're calling. But that does raise the
> question of why to focus on search_path.
>
> I guess I'm just saying my goal isn't to *prove* the code is correct.
> The user is still responsible for asserting it's correct. I just want
> to detect cases where I can prove (or at least show it's likely that)
> it's *not* correct.
Right. It's virtually impossible to prove that, for many reasons, so
the final responsibility must lie with the user-defined code.
Presumably there is still significant value in detecting cases where
some user-defined code provably does the wrong thing. Especially by
targeting mistakes that experience has shown are relatively common.
That's what the search_path case seems like to me.
If somebody else wants to write another patch that adds on that,
great. If not, then having this much still seems useful.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-06-09 21:12:44 | better page-level checksums |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2022-06-09 19:39:07 | Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions |