| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability |
| Date: | 2002-04-03 17:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | 3CAB3795.39FCF5E8@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > > (1) const or constant
> > > (2) cacheable
> > > (3) volatile
> >
> > I was wondering about "const" for case 1, also. I think there is some
> > precedent for using "const" with this meaning in other programming
> > languages.
>
> I think the meaning of "const" tends to be "cannot change the result" --
> which may actually make sense in SQL in a future life if you can pass
> around table descriptors or cursor references.
I can buy that. Ok, const isn't a good name.
How about 'immutable' ?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Esposito | 2002-04-03 17:11:51 | Re: Core dump on PG 7.1.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-03 17:10:42 | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-03 17:12:41 | Re: Question: update and transaction isolation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-03 17:10:42 | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability |