From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: expression evaluation with expected datatypes |
Date: | 2012-07-10 15:05:34 |
Message-ID: | 1341932624-sup-3455@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 10 10:56:50 -0400 2012:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 2012/7/10 Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>:
> >> I'm not sure I can understand the difference between that and the use
> >> case for which you want to implement DO blocks with parameters.
>
> > this is similar to temporary functions - you need some temporary name
> > - it is insert to pg_proc, and you have to solve possible conflicts.
>
> What's to solve? Presumably the WITH function name would take
> precedence over anything in the catalogs, the same as WITH query names
> take precedence over actual tables.
Hm, would the newly defined function mask all regular functions with
that name? If not, a seemingly innocuous change in a query could mean
calling not the function defined in the WITH FUNCTION clause but another
one with the same name but different parameter count/types.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2012-07-10 15:11:50 | Re: Re: Allow replacement of bloated primary key indexes without foreign key rebuilds |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-07-10 14:59:57 | Re: [PATCH] psql \n shortcut for set search_path = |