Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > пн, 3 июн. 2024 г. в 20:40, Pierre Forstmann <pierre.forstmann@xxxxxxxxx>: >> If you remove stable from function declaration, it works as expected: > ... therefore I assume STABLE should work in this case. Well, it seems not > to. I agree that this looks like a bug, since your example shows that the same function works as-expected in an ordinary expression but not in a CALL. The dependency on AUTOCOMMIT (that is, being within an outer transaction block) seems even odder. I've not dug into it yet, but I suppose we're passing the wrong snapshot to the CALL arguments. A volatile function wouldn't use that snapshot, explaining Pierre's result. regards, tom lane
