On Fri, Nov  8, 2013 at 06:00:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> > [ mark unaccent functions immutable ]
> > Applied.
> This patch is flat out wrong and needs to be reverted.
> The functions were correctly marked (by you!) in commit
> c0577c92a84cc477a88fe6868c16c4a7e3348b11 on the basis of the discussion of
> bug #5781,
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201012021544.ob2fitn1041...@wwwmaster.postgresql.org
> which was a request exactly like this one and was denied for good and
> sufficient reasons.  There was absolutely no reasoning given in this
> thread that explained why we should ignore the previous objections.
> In particular, marking the single-argument version of unaccent() as
> immutable is the height of folly because its behavior depends on the
> setting of search_path.  Changing the two-argument function is maybe
> a bit more debatable, but that's not what you did.
> If we were going to change the behavior, this patch would still be wrong
> because it fails to provide an upgrade path.  The objections saying you
> needed a 1.1 migration script were completely correct.

Thanks, patch reverted.  If people still want this, it needs to be
resbumitted with this feedback in mind.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to