Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Neil Conway wrote: > >> If a function's return value for a particular set of arguments could > >> change within a single table scan, the function is volatile -- ISTM > >> xslt_process() clearly falls within that definition. > > > My thought was that a w

Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Well, should be marked as VOLATILE? A web lookup? > > Yes. Its value is determined by factors outside the database, so > it has to be categorized as volatile. OK, done. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@ca

Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-13 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > Well, should be marked as VOLATILE? A web lookup? Yes. Its value is determined by factors outside the database, so it has to be categorized as volatile. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- T

Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-13 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > Neil Conway wrote: >> If a function's return value for a particular set of arguments could >> change within a single table scan, the function is volatile -- ISTM >> xslt_process() clearly falls within that definition. > My thought was that a web page lookup is going to be

Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-10 at 23:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Agreed. I have changed them both to stable. I think xslt_process() > > should be stable because it is unlikely you would want a URL's contents > > to change inside a transaction > > Why is it "unlikely"? > > If a f

Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE"

2005-10-12 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, 2005-12-10 at 23:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Agreed. I have changed them both to stable. I think xslt_process() > should be stable because it is unlikely you would want a URL's contents > to change inside a transaction Why is it "unlikely"? If a function's return value for a partic

Re: [HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
Agreed. I have changed them both to stable. I think xslt_process() should be stable because it is unlikely you would want a URL's contents to change inside a transaction, but likely you would want it to change between transactions. ---

[HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-10 Thread John Gray
Hi, I did see the message about the change of the function signatures to include IMMUTABLE and thought "Yes, that makes sense" - however, it has now occurred to me that: 1. xpath_table uses a SELECT query to fetch the data it uses, so should presumably be marked STABLE? 2. xslt_process is to be