From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com>
Cc: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Stable function semantics (was Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <7887.1096838845@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41606778.7090302@opencloud.com>
References: <web-1583353@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.10.10409271910480.22691-100000@solarwind>
<20041001182830.GA20624@wolff.to>
<13492.1096656574@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<415E6A15.1090105@bigfoot.com>
<20041002200451.GA14830@wolff.to>
<20041003011641.GB19221@wolff.to>
<41606778.7090302@opencloud.com>
Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com> writes:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> I should have said within a single statement instead of within a single
>> transaction.
> As I understand Tom's earlier explanation of this, the definition is
> even more narrow: stable functions only need to return the same value
> across a single tablescan.
> It might be useful to have some variant of stable (or perhaps just a
> change in semantics) such that the function returns the same value for
> identical parameters until the next CommandCounterIncrement.
In practice I think these are equivalent definitions.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, oliver@opencloud.com, bruno@wolff.to, mendola@bigfoot.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Stable function semantics (was Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions)
In-Reply-To: <7887.1096838845@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox