On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 20:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
So I went to see about making the changes to remove regex_flavor, and
was astonished to find that all the regex-related functions are already
marked immutable, and AFAICS always have been. This is clearly wrong,
and we would have to fix it if
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 20:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
So I went to see about making the changes to remove regex_flavor, and
was astonished to find that all the regex-related functions are already
marked immutable, and AFAICS always have been. This is
So, having dismissed my original off-the-cuff answer to Rod, the next
question is what's really going wrong for him. I get this from
a quick trial:
I wish I had kept specific notes on what I was actually trying to do.
I tried to_number first then the expression as seen below. I guess I
saw
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com writes:
It is interesting that citext seems to be functional with exactly
the same statements.
Huh, it looks to me like that's an error in the declaration of the
citext versions of regexp_matches --- they should be declared to return
setof text[], the same as the
On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Huh, it looks to me like that's an error in the declaration of the
citext versions of regexp_matches --- they should be declared to
return
setof text[], the same as the underlying text functions. David, do
you
agree?
Ooh, yeah, dunno how I
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Huh, it looks to me like that's an error in the declaration of the
citext versions of regexp_matches --- they should be declared to
return
setof text[], the same as the underlying text functions.
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ooh, yeah, dunno how I missed that.
I think we're probably stuck in 8.4, but we should fix it going
forward. Would you make a quick check if any of the other citext
functions have the same bug?
I've fixed it in my [version for
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:40 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ooh, yeah, dunno how I missed that.
I think we're probably stuck in 8.4, but we should fix it going
forward. Would you make a quick check if any of the other citext
functions have the same
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
FWIW, I think that this is a bug, and that the variation from the text
version will be unexpected. I recommend fixing it for 8.4.2.
Well, it's certainly a bug, but I don't think it's back-patchable.
A back-patch will not affect existing
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Is there a straight-foward way to check such a thing
programmatically, with a query perhaps? Or should I just put aside an
hour to do an audit?
I was wondering whether you could query pg_proc to look for functions
with the same name and
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was wondering whether you could query pg_proc to look for functions
with the same name and different arguments/results. It's a bit tricky
though because you'd expect s/citext/text/ in at least some positions
(maybe not all)?
Yeah, almost all.
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.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?
So I went to see about making the changes to remove regex_flavor,
(I'd bet lunch that the one about add_missing_from is bogus, too,
or could easily be made so. mysql isn't forgiving about missing
FROM items, so it's hard to believe that they have a lot of such
things no matter how little they care about Postgres.)
OpenACS does the old-style DELETEs
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:22:52AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
(I'd bet lunch that the one about add_missing_from is bogus, too,
or could easily be made so. mysql isn't forgiving about missing
FROM items, so it's hard to believe that they have a lot of such
things no matter how little they
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?
regards,
Rod Taylor
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.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.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.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?
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.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
David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.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
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.tay...@gmail.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
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:14:31PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com writes:
I tried making a functional index based on an expression
containing the 2 argument regexp_matches()
+1 It would seem to me to be more valuable to have the benefits of
IMMUTABLE than preserve pre-7.4 compatibility forever.
Just create a shell function which calls it in a specific flavor, and
make that immutable.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
David Fetter wrote:
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.
You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And
on 8.4, what is
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:06:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
David Fetter wrote:
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.
You have now. I have a client
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
David Fetter wrote:
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.
You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
They are probably quite open to changing it, but IIRC it is a setting
imposed by OpenACS, which is what they are based on.
I seem to recall having asked this before ... but does OpenACS even
know what they're doing here? The difference between ERE
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
They are probably quite open to changing it, but IIRC it is a setting
imposed by OpenACS, which is what they are based on.
I seem to recall having asked this before ... but does OpenACS even
know what they're doing here?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:51:13PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
They are probably quite open to changing it, but IIRC it is a
setting imposed by OpenACS, which is what they are based on.
I seem to recall having asked this
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:51:13PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That's not the worst of it :-( See
http://openacs.org/xowiki/How_to_install_in_Postgres_8.x
This just illustrates the fact that at least as far as PostgreSQL is
concerned, OpenACS is a dead
29 matches
Mail list logo
