On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 06:00:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > [ mark unaccent functions immutable ] > > > Applied. > > This patch is flat out wrong and needs to be reverted. > > The functions were correctly marked (by you!) in commit > c0577c92a84cc477a88fe6868c16c4a7e3348b11 on the basis of the discussion of > bug #5781, > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201012021544.ob2fitn1041...@wwwmaster.postgresql.org > which was a request exactly like this one and was denied for good and > sufficient reasons. There was absolutely no reasoning given in this > thread that explained why we should ignore the previous objections. > > In particular, marking the single-argument version of unaccent() as > immutable is the height of folly because its behavior depends on the > setting of search_path. Changing the two-argument function is maybe > a bit more debatable, but that's not what you did. > > If we were going to change the behavior, this patch would still be wrong > because it fails to provide an upgrade path. The objections saying you > needed a 1.1 migration script were completely correct.
Thanks, patch reverted. If people still want this, it needs to be resbumitted with this feedback in mind. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
