Re: Coalesce bug ?

From: Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Coalesce bug ?
Date: 2012-12-21 22:39:04
Message-ID: CAPTjJmrmFX0_Z7mcLQP9LNurchvPkFwntNRvX4QMfXqVd0M-og@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 02:22 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> As I understand it, there are three keywords: VOLATILE, STRICT, and
>> IMMUTABLE. Putting one of those keywords into the declaration flags
>> the function accordingly; if none is given, VOLATILE is assumed.
>>
>> Declaring the function as "STRICT IMMUTABLE" or "STRICT VOLATILE"
>> seems at best redundant (the word "STRICT" is mere noise), and at
>> worst confusing (the parser might be interpreting it as "STRICT", not
>> as the other keyword). Or is there something I'm missing here?
>
>
> Not sure I am following.
>
> IMMUTABLE/VOLATILE/STABLE deal with the query optimizer.
>
> CALLED ON NULL INPUT/STRICT deal with NULL input behavior.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/sql-createfunction.html

OOPS! Error's mine, sorry everyone! I thought the keyword was STRICT,
but it's actually STABLE that does that. Apologies to anyone who's
been confused by my miswording in this thread!

STRICT VOLATILE makes perfect sense; STABLE VOLATILE is what doesn't.

ChrisA

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 裴旭斌 2012-12-22 01:16:52
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-12-21 22:37:00 Re: UNION and pg_restore