Could regexp_matches be immutable?
in [PgSql]
|
From: Tom Lane on 14 Oct 2009 16:51 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. 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 17:07 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. 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 17:14 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. There are more things under heaven and earth .... 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
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 14 Oct 2009 17:14 David Fetter <david(a)fetter.org> 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? +1 It would seem to me to be more valuable to have the benefits of IMMUTABLE than preserve pre-7.4 compatibility forever. -Kevin -- 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 17:28
On 10/14/09 2:07 PM, 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. Actually, *we* (PGX) have a client who does. You just haven't worked on their stuff. --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 |