Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL

On 10/15/07, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I did make a version of the patch which has the pg_proc entries for
> > quote_literal and quote_nullable both pointing to the same internal
> > function. I thought this was a tidier solution, but it failed
> > regression test #5 in opr_sanity; apparently two entries in pg_proc
> > can't have the same prosrc and differing proisstrict?
>
> Sanity prevails, I guess. :-)
>

I'm all for the prevalance of sanity, but I'm not really clear on what
about the above scenario is not sane.

Suspect I'm missing something about the workings of pg_proc, but from
over here it seems like having a strict and a non-strict version of
the same function would be okay. As long as the internal function is
rigged to handle null input properly, what's the problem?

It's only tangential to the patch itself, and I'm not challenging the
regression test. Just curious about it.

Cheers,
BJ