From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <199902080348.WAA04656@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [SQL] Functional Indexes
In-Reply-To: <13890.918443915@sss.pgh.pa.us> from Tom Lane at "Feb 7,
	1999 10:18:35 pm"
To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:48:31 -0500 (EST)
Cc: marc@fallon.classyad.com, pgsql-sql@hub.org, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 
> Note to hackers: is there a good reason why indexes are more
> restrictive?  Offhand it seems like the same physical-equivalence
> trick could be applied.

What do you mean by restrictive.  If you mean:

	* allow creation of functional indexes to use default types

It is on the TODO list, and has been for a while.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026