| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2004-10-07 16:03:16 |
| Message-ID: | 416568C4.6070500@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
>
>>We cannot use named parameter notation with functions due to
>>overloading. Disregarding the idea of default values, consider:
>>
>>create function foo(i int, j int) ...
>>create function foo(j int, i int) ...
>>
>>
>
>That just means we cannot use the parameter name as a distinguishing
>factor in the overloading scheme. Which certainly makes a lot of sense
>to me.
>
>
To me too, It is not at all uncommon to disambiguate on the basis of the
parameter type profile, and ignore for this purpose the formal names.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2004-10-07 17:20:23 | Re: signal 11 on AIX: 7.4.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-07 15:56:24 | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 |