Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... However there's a hook mentioned in my abstract that
> explains that if a constant makes it into a function, you can
> provide a hook so that the function can return whether or not that
> constant is cacheable.
Oh, I see --- you're right, I missed that part of your proposal.
I dunno ... if we had more than one example of a case where this was
needed (and if that example weren't demonstrably broken for other
reasons), maybe that'd be worth doing. But it seems like a lot of
mechanism to add to solve a problem we shouldn't have anyway.
> I do see that on:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2000-09/msg00408.html
> both you and Thomas Lockhart agree that CURRENT is a broken concept
> because it can cause btree inconsistancies and should probably be
> removed anyway.
I had forgotten the btree argument, actually ... thanks for reminding
me!
I think it's too late to do anything about this for 7.1, in any case,
but I'll put removing CURRENT back on the front burner for 7.2.
regards, tom lane
