Re: [v9.2] LEAKPROOF attribute of FUNCTION (Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [v9.2] LEAKPROOF attribute of FUNCTION (Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem)
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob4V-rvKyP2Pi+_QSqfFhpOGS1pNJ+CdQV36cVrmyJVpg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [v9.2] LEAKPROOF attribute of FUNCTION (Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem)  (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>)
Responses Re: [v9.2] LEAKPROOF attribute of FUNCTION (Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem)  (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
> I rebased the patch due to the updates of pg_proc.h.
>
> Please see the newer one. Thanks,

Thanks, committed.  I think, though, that some further adjustment is
needed here, because you currently can't do ALTER FUNCTION ... NO
LEAKPROOF, which seems unacceptable.  It's fairly clear why not,
though: you get a grammar conflict, because the parser allows this:

create or replace function z() returns int as $$select 1$$ language
sql set transaction not deferrable;

However, since that syntax doesn't actually work, I'm thinking we
could just refactor things a bit to reject that at the parser stage.
The attached patch adopts that approach.  Anyone have a better idea?

I also think we ought to stick create_function_3 into one of the
parallel groups in the regression tests, if possible.  Can you
investigate that?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dan Ports
Date:
Subject: SSI rw-conflicts and 2PC
Next
From: Shigeru Hanada
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server