Tom Lane wrote:

Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I like the idea in general, but maybe instead there should be a new overloaded version of the existing function names that accepts an additional bool argument. Without the argument, behavior would be as it is now; with it, you could specify the old or new behavior.

Um, maybe I'm confused about the context, but aren't we talking about C function names here? No overloading is possible in C ...

I was thinking in terms of overloaded SQL function names. For example, in addition to dblink_exec(text) and dblink_exec(text,text) we create dblink_exec(text,bool) and dblink_exec(text,text,bool).

Currently both SQL versions of dblink_exec are implemented by a single C level function. But yes, we'd need another C level function to support the new SQL functions because there would be no way to distinguish the 2 two-argument versions otherwise. (Actually, now I'm wondering if we could use a single C function for all four SQL versions -- between PG_NARGS() and get_fn_expr_argtype() we should be able to figure out how we were called, shouldn't we?)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to