On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Let's say you have only one function "foo". All your queries are coded > into your application, and everything works fine, using assignment casts > where necessary. > > Then the user is foolish enough to CREATE FUNCTION foo... and now their > queries start failing left and right. > > In other words, "only one possible candidate exists" should be followed > by "right now" to be more precise. > > That's a major violation of the principle of least astonishment, that > CREATE FUNCTION could cause such a disaster. I know that it can now, but > what you're proposing will come into play much more frequently because > most people start off with just one function by a particular name and > define more as needed.
I admit that there are cases where this could happen, and that it will happen a little more than it does now. But, as you say, this can happen now, and yet we get very few if any complaints about it, whereas we get regular complaints about the need to insert casts that other database systems do not require. The fact is that most functions are not overloaded, so the esoterica of overloading affect only a tiny number of relatively sophisticated users. The need for extra casts cuts a much broader swath through our user base. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
