From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Domains and function arguments |
Date: | 2003-06-16 20:05:55 |
Message-ID: | 6362.1055793955@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The SQL standard does not allow functions to have domains as arguments.
> Semantically, they have a point.
I don't think they do. Declaring a domain as the input type seems a
very natural way of asserting that the function only works over a subset
of the base input type. For example, log() might usefully be declared
to take arguments from a "positivereal" domain.
Admittedly, we have trouble resolving the type to use when a function is
overloaded with both a domain and a base type, but that's hardly
surprising.
The present algorithm for ambiguous-function resolution is probably
excessively unfriendly to functions with domain inputs: it will match
them *only* when they are an exact match (ie, the input argument is
already declared or coerced to the domain type). I think that's bowing
quite far enough in the direction of the standard; I'd like to loosen
it someday, but don't have time to think about it more right now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yurgis Baykshtis | 2003-06-16 20:12:36 | Re: PostgreSQL and Windows |
Previous Message | ivan | 2003-06-16 19:59:34 | same new code |