Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g1F3qWE47650
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:52:32 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g1F3q0f11614;
	Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:52:00 -0500 (EST)
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
cc: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>,
	"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>, "Matthew Price" <pricem@juno.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index not being used 
In-reply-to: <GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEGJCBAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> 
References: <GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEGJCBAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Comments: In-reply-to "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
	message dated "Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:23:00 +0800"
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:52:00 -0500
Message-ID: <11611.1013745120@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200202/171
X-Sequence-Number: 6597

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>> More to the point, it's not considered a constant.

> Why?  Shouldn't it be constant for the duration of a transaction?

There is no such concept, at present.  See the archives...

			regards, tom lane