On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 09:47:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:40:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jean-Yves F. Barbier <12u...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> CREATE INDEX tst1m_name_lu_ix ON tst1m(unaccent(name)); > > >> ERROR: functions in index expression must be marked IMMUTABLE > > > > > your problem is the unaccent function. it's defined stable because > > > the rules function it depends on can change after the index is built > > > -- that would effectively introduce index corruption. it's possible > > > to bypass that restriction, but are you sure that's what you want to > > > do? > > > > Hmm ... it's clear why unaccent(text) is only stable, because it depends > > on the current search_path to find the "unaccent" dictionary. But I > > wonder whether it was an oversight that unaccent(regdictionary, text) > > is stable and not immutable. We don't normally mark functions as stable > > just because you could in principle change their behavior by altering > > some outside-the-database configuration files. > > Should we change the function signature for unaccent(regdictionary, > text)?
Did we decide not to do this? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
