Re: Nit: "Immutable" should be "pure"

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 02:17:58PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> The adjective "immutable" describing the functions and operators used in an
>> index (see two occurrences in doc snippet below) is incorrect and should be
>> replaced with "pure".

> I think the best we can do is to mention that IMMUTABLE functions mean
> pure, but I am not sure there is even enough demand for that, vs.
> confusing people.

Yeah. I don't think this terminology is nearly as universal
as the OP believes, so I don't feel a need to change anything.

If we adopt Corey's proposal to create a glossary [1], there'd be
room for a parenthetical comment like "(In some circles, "pure" is the
preferred term for this function property.)" in the glossary entry for
"immutable". I suspect it won't be the only entry that needs
cross-references to other terminology.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2305/