Victor Yegorov <vyego...@gmail.com> writes:
> пн, 3 июн. 2024 г. в 20:40, Pierre Forstmann <pierre.forstm...@gmail.com>:
>> If you remove stable from function declaration, it works as expected:
> ... therefore I assume STABLE should work in this case. Well, it seems not
> to.
I agree that this looks like a bug, since your example shows that the
same function works as-expected in an ordinary expression but not in
a CALL. The dependency on AUTOCOMMIT (that is, being within an outer
transaction block) seems even odder. I've not dug into it yet, but
I suppose we're passing the wrong snapshot to the CALL arguments.
A volatile function wouldn't use that snapshot, explaining Pierre's
result.
regards, tom lane
