Re: [HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 15:26, David G. Johnston > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Thom Brown writes: >>> > ...or at least according to the warning message: >>> > postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ; >>> > WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile >>> >>> See thread here: >>> >>> >>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACfv%2BpL2oX08SSZSoaHpyC%3DUbfTFmPt4UmVEKJTH7y%3D2QMRCBw%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> Given the lack of complaints so far, maybe we could think about >>> redefining >>> the behavior of chkpass_in. I'm not very sure to what, though. >>> >> >> Thom, how did you end up encountering this? >> > > I built the extension and tried to create it. Not really anything other > than that. > > I guess, "what was the motivation for creating the extension" would have been a better question. Just a test suite for completeness or something application-level? David J.
Re: [HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile
On 3 June 2016 at 15:26, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Thom Brown writes: >> > ...or at least according to the warning message: >> > postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ; >> > WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile >> >> See thread here: >> >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACfv%2BpL2oX08SSZSoaHpyC%3DUbfTFmPt4UmVEKJTH7y%3D2QMRCBw%40mail.gmail.com >> >> Given the lack of complaints so far, maybe we could think about redefining >> the behavior of chkpass_in. I'm not very sure to what, though. >> > > Thom, how did you end up encountering this? > I built the extension and tried to create it. Not really anything other than that. Thom
Re: [HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thom Brown writes: > > ...or at least according to the warning message: > > postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ; > > WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile > > See thread here: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACfv%2BpL2oX08SSZSoaHpyC%3DUbfTFmPt4UmVEKJTH7y%3D2QMRCBw%40mail.gmail.com > > Given the lack of complaints so far, maybe we could think about redefining > the behavior of chkpass_in. I'm not very sure to what, though. > Thom, how did you end up encountering this? While it seems to have resulted in the right effect (here) maybe we could have written: "WARNING: If you are reading this please email pgsql-b...@postgresql.org" and mention checkpass_in volatility in the subject." instead David J.
Re: [HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile
Thom Brown writes: > ...or at least according to the warning message: > postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ; > WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile See thread here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACfv%2BpL2oX08SSZSoaHpyC%3DUbfTFmPt4UmVEKJTH7y%3D2QMRCBw%40mail.gmail.com Given the lack of complaints so far, maybe we could think about redefining the behavior of chkpass_in. I'm not very sure to what, though. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile
...or at least according to the warning message: postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ; WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile Thom