Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/07/2015 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> That explains why the first example works while the second does
>> not. I'm not sure how hard it would be to fix that, but it
>> appears that that is where we should focus.
>
> Wouldn't it be fine if we drop some of the functions proposed
> without impacting the feature? Most of the functions overlap with
> each other, making us see the limitations we see.
>
> Hence, wouldn't it be enough to just have this set of functions in
> the patch? dblink_get_result(text, bool, anyelement) dblink (text,
> text, boolean, anyelement) dblink_fetch (text, text, int, boolean,
> anyelement)

I think new using function names is better especially if we are only
going to support a subset. I have no idea what to call them however.
Did someone else suggest dblink_any(), etc?

I also think that the ultimately best solution is (what I believe to
be spec compliant) SRF casting, but I guess that could be a task for a
later day.

- --
Joe Conway
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVnT30AAoJEDfy90M199hl/dcP/29Byp5SE0TPE5EHeJwS6MDf
76KpsiyMZkxddBaiXiPbgrWEBZHdGExyzYj2qO9utPuFlzVTZpAbVcoFXaUg9Ak/
VMKkoxSB1iq1E1Pu64K26xvCU0GzMW1bazcGo4263iSlDjiRCB+CkL5UokEqSmvb
c9u7UZ3sdgn34C9iF3Z6pHa5GQoYB+i3kCxFuCdYMyHFZYdA0EtDvFNCoCNsWUCW
783IiQbeKCcj+j0bJ5v8lGfvHGfAJV0C0xiYiLios2nyClOvIQQQv2YN84BWDM6F
oWWJoExd51iL94RF/hRBJ/WXFFBfg/r30ULW5/dwhdp8cl1wPW+cY4srEHlTluZZ
KzoCujD5rhofJsS7tV9xs6tV4K/4/enknogHT0iWT89B/svAR52SUkRiH22mvhps
cpVVOsIP+ojmvmWW2p8jvq9ml5Ls6Z24AyRZ+OVZnVZGzAC9Z+NhwcjJaDWiWU2+
lgVuvIorYWZLHGzd6syrZKxKxdJRZ5ibYe2SN3Q2wlicZRPS5cXOgTfKoSduMTvY
GoNRPHQSPeuBNoq4pFUWN8EqH3oijN+PqdnIwc0HMaDyxR0AnISZiLwYWnY8WlqB
pdFV6tGsvsM6WbXTIqJ/3diRjRMl2/rtz6o8b3a1K7eL+PB7v5T0I+h9pwJQM2+a
WPffDIaY2Odnt9Axebu5
=CZ0t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----