From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Viktor Holmberg <v@viktorh.net>
cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function
In-reply-to: <b698bb0e-766a-4255-a8c2-a1d14ef2a8f5@Spark>
References: <ae6ed432-4491-4030-be20-3ea69d03a098@Spark>
 <790bc1f9-74dc-4b50-94d2-8147315b1556@Spark>
 <51C655A4-46FB-4A40-BAE5-26A76B31D3EE@yesql.se>
 <3052531.1741961784@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <de89bd5c-9f51-4891-8a38-d03ed06ebd1d@Spark>
 <3074065.1741965229@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <b698bb0e-766a-4255-a8c2-a1d14ef2a8f5@Spark>
Comments: In-reply-to Viktor Holmberg <v@viktorh.net>
	message dated "Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:08:36 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <3080650.1741969122.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:18:42 -0400
Message-ID: <3080651.1741969122@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3080651.1741969122%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Viktor Holmberg <v@viktorh.net> writes:
> However, cleaning things up to use GUC seems like it=E2=80=99d be bigger=
 task, and also would only be an extra thing, as isn_weak function would n=
eed to stay in for backwards compatibility I assume.

Wouldn't be a big deal --- yes, accept_weak_input would need a bit of
modification, but it's not much.  The main reason I suggested it was
that a GUC would be subject to RESET ALL and so it'd fix the pooler
hazard you pointed out.

> In terms of just fixing the immediate bug, I believe it=E2=80=99d just b=
e to change isn.sql line 3423 and 2433:

No, we'd need to create an update script that uses ALTER FUNCTION.
Extension scripts are basically frozen once shipped.

			regards, tom lane