Re: Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions
Date: 2009-03-05 19:10:36
Message-ID: 8960.1236280236@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I've recently run into a problem with a datatype whose operators are
> based on functions not marked IMMUTABLE. Although there might be good
> reasons to have such a thing, it seems like it might be a valuable
> warning message if you create an operator based on an non-IMMUTABLE
> function. Comments?

No, it wouldn't be a good idea. There are plenty of such operators.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-03-05 19:15:26 Re: Expanding the length of a VARCHAR column should not induce a table rewrite
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-03-05 18:48:25 Re: Operators based on non-IMMUTABLE functions