From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>
cc: Pierre Forstmann <pierre.forstmann@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off
In-reply-to: <CAGnEbojf5Awm862ghvooLku6mm0m4yF60PyHQxCinM8pn01sbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGnEboiRe+fG2QxuBO2390F7P8e2MQ6UyBjZSL_w1Cej+E4=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM-sOH80Z=OqYBWgYP=BDGLbxQ72wkC9=tZ-vRKxkmKkhTD7MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnEbojf5Awm862ghvooLku6mm0m4yF60PyHQxCinM8pn01sbw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:15:07 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <90051.1717442890.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:28:10 -0400
Message-ID: <90052.1717442890@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/90052.1717442890%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com> writes:
> =D0=BF=D0=BD, 3 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BD. 2024=E2=80=AF=D0=B3. =D0=B2 20:40, P=
ierre Forstmann <pierre.forstmann@gmail.com>:
>> If you remove stable from function declaration, it works as expected:

> ... therefore I assume STABLE should work in this case. Well, it seems n=
ot
> to.

I agree that this looks like a bug, since your example shows that the
same function works as-expected in an ordinary expression but not in
a CALL.  The dependency on AUTOCOMMIT (that is, being within an outer
transaction block) seems even odder.  I've not dug into it yet, but
I suppose we're passing the wrong snapshot to the CALL arguments.
A volatile function wouldn't use that snapshot, explaining Pierre's
result.

			regards, tom lane