Could regexp_matches be immutable?
in [PgSql]
|
From: David Fetter on 14 Oct 2009 17:36 On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:14:31PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > David Fetter wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Rod Taylor <rod.taylor(a)gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> I tried making a functional index based on an expression >>>> containing the 2 argument regexp_matches() function. Is there a >>>> reason why this function is not marked immutable instead of >>>> normal? >>>> >>> regex_flavor affects its result. >>> >> >> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC? >> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default. > > You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And > on 8.4, what is more. OK, now I've heard of one. I still think we should deprecate and remove. Say, deprecate this next release and remove for the following one? > There are more things under heaven and earth .... My philosophy doesn't include infinite backward compatibility. Neither do heaven and earth, come to think of it. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david(a)fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter(a)gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 14 Oct 2009 17:54 > +1 It would seem to me to be more valuable to have the benefits of > IMMUTABLE than preserve pre-7.4 compatibility forever. Just create a shell function which calls it in a specific flavor, and make that immutable. --Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 14 Oct 2009 18:06 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: > David Fetter wrote: >> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC? >> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default. > You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And > on 8.4, what is more. How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source of variability. It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options" prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: David Fetter on 14 Oct 2009 18:17 On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:06:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: > > David Fetter wrote: > >> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC? > >> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default. > > > You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And > > on 8.4, what is more. > > How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source > of variability. > > It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the > GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options" > prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4: > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html Switching it to just embedded options solves the issue of leaving the feature in while cutting the surprises down for those not using it. :) The "embedded options" method is also doable by search-and-replace, as they only work in AREs, which such people wouldn't be using. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david(a)fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter(a)gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Andrew Dunstan on 14 Oct 2009 22:13
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: > >> David Fetter wrote: >> >>> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC? >>> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default. >>> > > >> You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And >> on 8.4, what is more. >> > > How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source > of variability. > > It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the > GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options" > prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4: > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html > > > They are probably quite open to changing it, but IIRC it is a setting imposed by OpenACS, which is what they are based on. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |