X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51232D1B3C5 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:51:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79698-03 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:51:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from megazone.bigpanda.com (megazone.bigpanda.com [64.147.171.210]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BE2D1B3B2 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:51:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EA8373518E; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9014350D9; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephan Szabo To: Markus Bertheau Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: immutable function calling stable function In-Reply-To: <1090418677.3239.23.camel@dicaprio.akademie1.de> Message-ID: <20040721074430.M61440@megazone.bigpanda.com> References: <1090418677.3239.23.camel@dicaprio.akademie1.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/155 X-Sequence-Number: 18407 On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Markus Bertheau wrote: > shouldn't it be illegal for an immutable function to call a stable one? It's expected that the function's creator is responsible for properly marking its stability. This allows some flexibility when you know more than the system does (for example, a stable function that isn't immutable because of its use of a GUC variable being called from a function that sets said variable).