Horton

Re: leakproof

Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-02-20T08:55:52Z
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