| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 15:28:59 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790812090728v3a1ec454l8058de338aa465ec@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> ... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
>
>> what is acceptable workaround? I unhappy, so this symbol was used for
>> this minor contrib module (for this operator doesn't exists regress
>> test).
>
> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module
> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are
> good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators.
it means, so we must not implement any new operator?
regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-09 15:33:57 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-09 15:26:12 | Re: operator does not exist: smallint <> smallint[] |