| From: | Joachim Wieland <jwieland(at)kawo2(dot)rwth-aachen(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: STABLE functions |
| Date: | 2003-04-27 07:46:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20030427074617.GA13649@mcknight.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 12:55:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The point at issue is that the "stable function" classification was
> defined and implemented to provide a semantically valid way of deciding
> whether it's safe to treat an expression as an indexscan qualifier.
> There is no code that attempts to do anything else with it.
Just out of curiosity: What would be an example where you can not treat
a stable function as a constant in a single sql query?
Thanks,
Joachim
--
*****PGP key available - send e-mail request***** - ICQ: 37225940
"If you want truly to understand something, try to change it"
- Kurt Lewin (1890 - 1947)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-04-27 08:35:11 | Re: [EXAMPLE] Overly zealous security of schemas... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-27 05:28:46 | Re: current breakage with PGCLIENTENCODING |