Merlin Moncure-2 wrote > Any reliance on that behavior would be wrong because it's expressly > contraindicated by the documentation. That makes no practical difference since the decision to make the function volatile is not conscious due to it being the default; and the current behavior hides the fact that what they are doing is unsupported since they do nothing special to invoke the optimization. The people likely to be hit by this are those with the least experience and so in making the change, which I do support, communication of the behavior difference needs to be done in such a way as to reasonably reach and gain understanding from these people. That aside, I'm not coming up with any standard idioms that would benefit from this optimization so the scope of the problem may very well be small enough to just bite the bullet and deal with regression complaints as they are voiced. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Bug-Function-with-side-effects-not-evaluated-in-CTE-tp5774792p5775292.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
