On 2020-Feb-18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:01 AM Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > It looks that commit 5925e5549890416bcf588334d9d0bc99f8ad6c7f forgot to
> > > mark the function as volatile. Not sure if it was intentional.
> >
> > It seems an oversight to me.
>
> Maybe this happened because the default volatility for pg_proc.dat
> entries is not 'volatile' -- it's 'immutable'.
That makes me wonder what should be the default --- and should there
even *be* a default in the first place? Maybe it's better to make
everyone *think* about it every time rather than hoping we'll all
remember, and frequently having it got wrong.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services