On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 14:24 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 15:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I can't quite see how a non-overloaded flag would work, unless we get
> > rid of schemas.
>
> It may work to pick the first schema in the search path that has any
> functions by that name, and then choose the overloaded (or not)
> candidate from among those functions in that one schema. Then,
> non-overloaded function names would be unique within a schema.
>
> If there are multiple functions of the same name in multiple schemas in
> the search path, it does not make sense to me to lump them all together
> and choose an overloaded candidate from all of them (although I think
> that's what we do now). That sounds like a mistake, to me. Do you know
> of any useful examples of doing that?
On second thought, this won't work very well, particularly for
operators. Users may want to overload a built-in operator, like "+", yet
still have it work on all the built-in types.
So, if we did try to declare a function non-overloaded at DDL time, the
name would have to be globally unique (not just to a schema).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
