| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: leakproof |
| Date: | 2012-02-20 08:55:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4F420A98.6090302@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-02-20 06:37, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> It's not clear to me whether pure/leakproof functions are meant to be a
>> strict subset of immutable functions
> Superset, not subset, unless my guessing is wrong. How could "pure" be a subset of "immutable"?
If immutable functions are not necessarily leakproof/pure, and all
leakproof/pure functions are immutable.
If the latter is not the case, "pure" leads to confusion as well.
What about "discreet"?
-- Yeb
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2012-02-20 08:57:00 | Re: leakproof |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-02-20 08:54:49 | Re: Bugs/slowness inserting and indexing cubes |