Re: Error-safe user functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Error-safe user functions
Date
Msg-id 4043604.1670436038@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Error-safe user functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Is there a guarantee that input functions are stable or immutable?

> There's a project policy that that should be true.  That justifies
> marking things like record_in as stable --- if the per-column input
> functions could be volatile, record_in would need to be as well.
> There are other dependencies on it; see e.g. aab353a60, 3db6524fe.

I dug in the archives and found the thread leading up to aab353a60:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/AANLkTik8v7O9QR9jjHNVh62h-COC1B0FDUNmEYMdtKjR%40mail.gmail.com

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] Logical replica crash if there was an error in a function.