| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Rod Taylor" <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 21:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD5F8EC020000250002B94A@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > I tried making a functional index based on an expression
>> > containing the 2 argument regexp_matches() function. Is there a
>> > reason why this function is not marked immutable instead of
>> > normal?
>>
>> regex_flavor affects its result.
>
> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this
> GUC?
+1 It would seem to me to be more valuable to have the benefits of
IMMUTABLE than preserve pre-7.4 compatibility forever.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-14 21:17:53 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-10-14 21:14:31 | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |