| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |