> According to the documentation, f() should be marked VOLATILE also, since
> calling f() produces side effects. PostgreSQL does not give a warning (or
> better yet, an error); I think it should.
I think the answer is that function authors are required to prevent
functions they mark as STABLE from
Terje Elde writes:
> Would it be possible (and make sense) to solve this in a completely different
> way, not walking the function tree or doing static analysis, but simply
> setting and checking a bit during execution?
While it's possible that we could do something like that, I think it's
fair
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Inter function dependencies is a hard topic indeed. I still would like
> to see some kind of progress being made someday. The general case is
> turing complete tho, because you can use EXECUTE against programatically
> generated SQL.
>
> You
'Bruce Momjian' writes:
> Well, we can't walk the function tree to know all called functions, and
> those they call, so we don't even try.
Inter function dependencies is a hard topic indeed. I still would like
to see some kind of progress being made someday. The general case is
turing complete th
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:10:35PM -0700, Dwayne Towell wrote:
> > According to the documentation, f() should be marked VOLATILE also, since
> > calling f() produces side effects. PostgreSQL does not give a warning (or
> > better yet, an error); I think it should.
>
> I think the answer is that fu
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 08:58:46PM +, dwa...@docketnavigator.com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 8516
> Logged by: Dwayne Towell
> Email address: dwa...@docketnavigator.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
> Operating system: CentOS
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 8516
Logged by: Dwayne Towell
Email address: dwa...@docketnavigator.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
Operating system: CentOS
Description:
Why doesn't PostgreSQL give a warning when calling a volatile funct
