On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> An alternative that just occurred to me is to put the no-volatile- >> I/O-functions check into CREATE TYPE, but make it just WARNING not >> ERROR. That would be nearly as good as an ERROR in terms of nudging >> people who'd accidentally omitted a volatility marking from their >> custom types. But we could leave chkpass as-is and wait to see if >> anyone complains "hey, why am I getting this warning?". If we don't >> hear anyone complaining, maybe that means we can get away with changing >> the type's behavior in 9.6 or later. > > Attached is a complete patch along these lines. As I suggested earlier, > this just makes the relevant changes in ltree--1.0.sql and > pg_trgm--1.1.sql without bumping their extension version numbers, > since it doesn't seem important enough to justify a version bump. > > I propose that we could back-patch the immutability-additions in ltree and > pg_trgm, since they won't hurt anything and might make life a little > easier for future adopters of those modules. The WARNING additions should > only go into HEAD though.
I don't understand why you went to all the trouble of building a versioning system for extensions if you're not going to use it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
