Is it a necessary restriction? It looks like they are called in 2 different contexts and that there's no ambiguity whether we want a table function or otherwise.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > Table functions and regular functions occupy the same namespace. You can’t > “overload” on what kind of function it is. > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Right now when calcite asks the schema for functions by name it does not > > provide context whether we want a TableFunction or a regular function. > > This create problems when there are collisions between table functions > and > > regular functions. > > In my case in Drill anything that can be a valid table is a valid table > > function and that includes all functions. > > Would it be possible to change this so that the schema knows what type of > > function we want? > > > > -- > > Julien > > -- Julien
