Re: [BUGS] BUG #8516: Calling VOLATILE from STABLE function

2013-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Terje Elde te...@elde.net writes:
 Would it be possible (and make sense) to solve this in a completely different 
 way, not walking the function tree or doing static analysis, but simply 
 setting and checking a bit during execution?

While it's possible that we could do something like that, I think it's
fairly unlikely that we would.  The reason is that it would disable
constructs that some people find useful; that is, sometimes it's
intentional that a stable function calls a volatile one.

A couple of examples:

1. You might want to make some database updates but continue to do queries
with a pre-update snapshot.  A single function can't accomplish that,
but the combination of a stable outer function with a volatile update
function can.

2. A security checking function (for use with Veil or the proposed row
security feature) might wish to log accesses without denying them.  To
do that it'd have to be volatile, so if we had a restriction like this
the function would fail when invoked within a stable function.

You can imagine various ways around such issues, but it would add a lot
of complication.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #8516: Calling VOLATILE from STABLE function

2013-10-11 Thread Dwayne Towell
 According to the documentation, f() should be marked VOLATILE also, since
 calling f() produces side effects. PostgreSQL does not give a warning (or
 better yet, an error); I think it should.

I think the answer is that function authors are required to prevent
functions they mark as STABLE from calling VOLATILE functions.

--

I understand it's an error (at least usually), my question/issue is why does
PostgreSQL NOT give at least a warning when a programmer (probably
accidentally) calls a VOLATILE function in one that he has specifically
tagged as STABLE? The compiler has all the information to notify the
programmer of a mistake, but isn't. This violates a fundamental principle of
software engineering--take every opportunity to prevent errors.

Dwayne 



-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #8516: Calling VOLATILE from STABLE function

2013-10-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Oct  9, 2013 at 08:58:46PM +, dwa...@docketnavigator.com wrote:
 The following bug has been logged on the website:
 
 Bug reference:  8516
 Logged by:  Dwayne Towell
 Email address:  dwa...@docketnavigator.com
 PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
 Operating system:   CentOS
 Description:
 
 Why doesn't PostgreSQL give a warning when calling a volatile function from
 a stable function?
 
 
 For example:
 CREATE TABLE x (val double);
 
 
 CREATE FUNCTION g() RETURNS boolean AS $$
 INSERT INTO x SELECT rand() RETURNING val0.5; 
 $$ LANGUAGE SQL VOLATILE;
 
 
 CREATE FUNCTION f() RETURNS boolean AS $$
 SELECT g(); -- this is where the stability-violation happens
 $$ LANGUAGE SQL STABLE; -- this is a lie
 
 
 According to the documentation, f() should be marked VOLATILE also, since
 calling f() produces side effects. PostgreSQL does not give a warning (or
 better yet, an error); I think it should.

I think the answer is that function authors are required to prevent
functions they mark as STABLE from calling VOLATILE functions.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #8516: Calling VOLATILE from STABLE function

2013-10-10 Thread 'Bruce Momjian'
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:10:35PM -0700, Dwayne Towell wrote:
  According to the documentation, f() should be marked VOLATILE also, since
  calling f() produces side effects. PostgreSQL does not give a warning (or
  better yet, an error); I think it should.
 
 I think the answer is that function authors are required to prevent
 functions they mark as STABLE from calling VOLATILE functions.
 
 --
 
 I understand it's an error (at least usually), my question/issue is why does
 PostgreSQL NOT give at least a warning when a programmer (probably
 accidentally) calls a VOLATILE function in one that he has specifically
 tagged as STABLE? The compiler has all the information to notify the
 programmer of a mistake, but isn't. This violates a fundamental principle of
 software engineering--take every opportunity to prevent errors.

Well, we can't walk the function tree to know all called functions, and
those they call, so we don't even try.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs