| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marc Howard Zuckman <marc(at)fallon(dot)classyad(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Functional Indexes |
| Date: | 1999-02-08 15:56:12 |
| Message-ID: | 36BF091C.4D06527B@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> > I don't think lower is defined for varchar arguments.
> Note to hackers: is there a good reason why indexes are more
> restrictive? Offhand it seems like the same physical-equivalence
> trick could be applied.
Well, we should have a combination of "binary compatible" and type
coersion to make this fly, just as we have in other places for v6.4. I
didn't realize this index code was there, so never looked at it.
If someone else doesn't get to it, I'll try to look at it before or
during 6.5beta...
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terry Mackintosh | 1999-02-08 16:00:37 | Commercial support, things considered |
| Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-02-08 15:44:44 | Re: [HACKERS] DEC OSF1 Compilation problems |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bryan White | 1999-02-08 18:36:39 | Re: [SQL] Functional Indexes |
| Previous Message | Pascal GEND | 1999-02-08 13:08:17 | subscribe pgsql-sql |