Re: leakproof

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On mån, 2012-02-20 at 01:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> For the present application (pushdown into security views), we really
>> only care whether the function has side effects, such as throwing an
>> error or mutating global state.

> How about [NO] SIDEEFFECTS?

Well, that's already stated to be one of the requirements for being
immutable or stable, so I think we need a term that's a bit stronger.

The real issue here is that the notion of what is a side effect is
much much broader than what we have used in the past.  I don't think
we clarify that by continuing to use the same term "side effect".
        regards, tom lane