Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I think I have made a mistake here. I was reading in between the lines > of a competitor's documentation that they have functions and procedures > in different name spaces, which made me re-read the SQL standard, which > appears to support that approach.
> So I'm proposing here a patch to fix that. It is similar to the patch > proposed earlier in the thread, but more extensive. > One open problem in my patch is that regproc/regprocedure don't have a > way to distinguish functions from procedures. Maybe a two-argument > version of to_regprocedure? This will also affect psql's \ef function > and the like. TBH, this is several months too late for v11. You're talking about a really fundamental redesign, at least if it's done right and not as a desperate last-minute hack (which is what this looks like). The points you make here are just the tip of the iceberg of things that would need to be reconsidered. I also remain of the opinion that if we're to separate these namespaces, the way to do that is to put procedures somewhere other than pg_proc. Unless you can show that "separate namespaces" is the *only* correct reading of the SQL spec, which I doubt given the ROUTINE syntax, I think we're pretty much stuck with the choice we made already. Or we can push beta back a month or two while we rethink that. But there's no way you're convincing me that this is a good change to make four days before beta. regards, tom lane