Re: [HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile

2016-06-03 Thread David G. Johnston 
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

2016-06-03 Thread Thom Brown 
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

2016-06-03 Thread David G. Johnston 
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

2016-06-03 Thread Tom Lane 
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