From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
Date: | 2007-10-09 08:15:06 |
Message-ID: | 878x6cemb9.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/9/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> A function is said to be deterministic, if it returns the same value,
>> irrespective of how many times, it is invoked. I think this definition
>> clearly puts the random function under the non-deterministic category. If we
>> have such a classification, do you think we can resolve this issue?
>
> If we frame a set of guidelines/test procedure, do you think it might solve
> the issue? Even, if we don't allow this type of indexing to anything other
> than built-in deterministic functions, i feel it would serve most of the
> indexing requirements.
We already do this. c.f. IMMUTABLE at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/xfunc-volatility.html
and
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/sql-createindex.html
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-10-09 08:31:29 | Re: Latest ecpg patch broke MSVC build |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2007-10-09 08:00:51 | Re: Latest ecpg patch broke MSVC build |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2007-10-09 08:33:48 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-10-09 07:51:38 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |