Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that a non-volatile function can not perform
update is a good improvement but on the other side will
limit too much if I know what I'm doing.
I've got zero sympathy for this argument. It's been documented right
along that
Robert,
I think the guidelines are fairly clear on what types of functions should be
declared with which types. But the key is that these are guidelines, not hard
and fast rules, since there may be times when you need to ignore them.
In 7.4 they where indeed guidelines. In 8.x the semantics
Tom Lane wrote:
Thomas Hallgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Rationale for my opinion is that since there is a need to accomplish
what Gaetano needs, there should be declarative power to express it and
thus, prevent unsafe designs. We need a way to declare a function
stable with no _intrusive_
Thomas Hallgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Rationale for my opinion is that since there is a need to accomplish
what Gaetano needs, there should be declarative power to express it and
thus, prevent unsafe designs. We need a way to declare a function
stable with no _intrusive_ side
Tom,
What you think is non-intrusive may not be so at the database's level.
I know. But thats not my point. Look at this this way:
I'd like to declare a function STABLE. And I'd like to trust that
declaration 100%. So a stable function must *never* call a function that
is VOLATILE. Not
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 18:06, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Tom,
What you think is non-intrusive may not be so at the database's level.
I know. But thats not my point. Look at this this way:
I'd like to declare a function STABLE. And I'd like to trust that
declaration 100%. So a stable
Gaetano,
I do not consider my design as unsafe, this is for example how a
cache works: expose a read without side effect but updating internal
statistics. After all the read will not alter the data that it expose
but other data that the user even don't know the existence.
However I think that that
Gaetano,
I do not consider my design as unsafe, this is for example how a
cache works: expose a read without side effect but updating internal
statistics. After all the read will not alter the data that it expose
but other data that the user even don't know the existence.
At issue is the
Josh Berkus wrote:
Gaetano,
I do not consider my design as unsafe, this is for example how a
cache works: expose a read without side effect but updating internal
statistics. After all the read will not alter the data that it expose
but other data that the user even don't know the existence.
At
Hi all,
I missed the discussion on hacker about this, and
I'd like to give my HO.
The fact that a non-volatile function can not perform
update is a good improvement but on the other side will
limit too much if I know what I'm doing.
I did a sort of Lookup framework and this is extensively
used in
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that a non-volatile function can not perform
update is a good improvement but on the other side will
limit too much if I know what I'm doing.
I've got zero sympathy for this argument. It's been documented right
along that functions with
Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that a non-volatile function can not perform
update is a good improvement but on the other side will
limit too much if I know what I'm doing.
I've got zero sympathy for this argument. It's been documented right
along
12 matches
Mail list logo
