Received: from golem.jpl.nasa.gov (IDENT:root@hectic-1.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.68.203]) by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24686 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:56:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu) Received: from alumni.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by golem.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA22526; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:56:12 GMT Sender: tgl@mythos.jpl.nasa.gov Message-ID: <36BF091C.4D06527B@alumni.caltech.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 15:56:12 +0000 From: "Thomas G. Lockhart" Organization: Caltech/JPL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Marc Howard Zuckman , pgsql-sql@hub.org, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Functional Indexes References: <13890.918443915@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I don't think lower is defined for varchar arguments. > 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. Well, we should have a combination of "binary compatible" and type coersion to make this fly, just as we have in other places for v6.4. I didn't realize this index code was there, so never looked at it. If someone else doesn't get to it, I'll try to look at it before or during 6.5beta... - Tom