From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Grant Hutchins and Peter Jaros <grant(at)pivotallabs(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5781: unaccent() function should be marked IMMUTABLE |
Date: | 2010-12-23 01:45:41 |
Message-ID: | 201012230145.oBN1jfT16777@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Grant Hutchins and Peter Jaros" <grant(at)pivotallabs(dot)com> writes:
> > The unaccent(text) function supplied by contrib/unaccent is marked VOLATILE.
> > This prevents it from being used in indexes. We believe that the function
> > meets the requirements to be marked IMMUTABLE.
>
> No, it most certainly doesn't. It depends on the behavior of a
> dictionary that it has no hard-wired connection to, so the specific
> behavior of the dictionary is uncertain. Even if you're willing to
> assume that the dictionary being used is the one defined by this
> module, that dictionary depends on external configuration files
> which are easily changeable.
>
> Arguably it'd be reasonable to change the function's marking from
> volatile to stable, but that's not going to be enough to allow use in
> indexes.
So, should we change unaccent() from VOLATILE to STABLE?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atul Kumar | 2010-12-23 08:31:08 | Issue while using PostgreSql 8.4. |
Previous Message | Maxim Boguk | 2010-12-22 21:53:45 | Re: BUG #5798: Some weird error with pl/pgsql procedure |