Re: Question about FUNCDETAIL_MULTIPLE

Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> I was wondering what the philosophy is behind letting an "ambiguous"
> function be created in the first place. Is this for backwards
> compatibility or perhaps for historical reasons?

Neither; it's a feature, and one we quite like. For example, would you
really prefer that the six different versions of abs() had to have
different names?

regression=# \df abs
List of functions
Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type
------------+------+------------------+---------------------+--------
pg_catalog | abs | bigint | bigint | normal
pg_catalog | abs | double precision | double precision | normal
pg_catalog | abs | integer | integer | normal
pg_catalog | abs | numeric | numeric | normal
pg_catalog | abs | real | real | normal
pg_catalog | abs | smallint | smallint | normal
(6 rows)

Even if you were willing to do that, what about the forty-seven
distinct versions of "+"? Overloaded operators are not fundamentally
different from overloaded functions.

regards, tom lane