Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZXEcziZF7GimxoYu1M_R=NLDq4=+BrkBqGMPUxBaaFaQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile  (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
On 3 June 2016 at 15:26, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
> ...or at least according to the warning message:
> postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ;
> WARNING:  type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile

See thread here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACfv%2BpL2oX08SSZSoaHpyC%3DUbfTFmPt4UmVEKJTH7y%3D2QMRCBw%40mail.gmail.com

Given the lack of complaints so far, maybe we could think about redefining
the behavior of chkpass_in.  I'm not very sure to what, though.

Thom, how did you end up encountering this?

I built the extension and tried to create it.  Not really anything other than that.


​I guess, "what was the motivation for creating the extension" would have been a better question.  Just a test suite for completeness or something application-level?

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: chkpass_in should not be volatile
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.