X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B56C329D9E for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:59:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78644-09 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:59:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BB1329D9C for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:59:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8ADxZit018534; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:59:36 -0400 (EDT) To: Greg Stark Cc: Theo Galanakis , "'Josh Berkus'" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Isnumeric function? In-reply-to: <87sm9qsj2d.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> References: <82E30406384FFB44AFD1012BAB230B55037D0591@shiva.au.lpint.net> <871xhatyhp.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> <87sm9qsj2d.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Comments: In-reply-to Greg Stark message dated "10 Sep 2004 03:02:18 -0400" Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:59:35 -0400 Message-ID: <18533.1094824775@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/74 X-Sequence-Number: 18920 Greg Stark writes: > That's all well and good. But when I tried to make a version of your > situation that used a function I found it doesn't work so well with > functional indexes: > ... > I can't figure out why this is happening. You're using 7.3 or older? regards, tom lane