Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>The Rationale for my opinion is that since there is a need to accomplish >>what Gaetano needs, there should be declarative power to express it and >>thus, prevent "unsafe" designs. We need a way to declare a function >>"stable with no _intrusive_ side effects". > > > What you think is non-intrusive may not be so at the database's level. >
Right, but the actual solution is far from be the good one. If you claim that an immutable function "must not" do update because otherwise the database could be in a inconsisten status, then we are in trouble permitting a non-immutable function to be called by an "immutable" one. I like see postgres stable as always was till now and I prefer seen my code completelly broken than see someone call a non-immutable function inside a "immutable" one and claim on this list that he lost data.
I think a clean solution is enforce the check between functions call ( I prefer even only this one), and at the same time provide a "mutable" attribute for tables ( a mutable table can be updated even inside an immutable contest ).
Regards Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
