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'.
--
Peter Geoghegan