Re: Re: Drop all overloads of a function without knowing parameter types

* David Johnston (polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com) wrote:
> Evan Martin wrote
> > So I don't agree with the suggestion of matching function names using a
> > regex, since that's not supported for other types of objects. To explain
> > the use case a little better:

Uh, we could add such support, which might be very handy.

> > I maintain a set of scripts that can create a database from scratch.
> > Sometimes I also need to update an existing database to the latest
> > version. For tables this obviously requires separate scripts to preserve
> > data, but views, rules and triggers can be updated just by using CREATE
> > OR REPLACE in the DB creation scripts. Functions can /almost/ be updated
> > this way, but not quite.
> > Function arguments may change over time.
>
> No, they cannot. If the arguments change you are dealing with an entirely
> new object.

Yeah, for better or worse, we allow function overloading and we're not
going to be dropping that.

Thanks,

Stephen