| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 21:28:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD64265.2010807@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/14/09 2:07 PM, David Fetter 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?
> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default.
Actually, *we* (PGX) have a client who does. You just haven't worked on
their stuff.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-14 21:33:43 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-10-14 21:26:51 | Re: What does this configure warning mean? |