From: | Ezequiel Tolnay <mail(at)etolnay(dot)com(dot)ar> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wishlist? |
Date: | 2005-07-22 02:41:25 |
Message-ID: | dbpm9e$r82$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
>>What happens if there is more than one existing function with that name
>>already. Do all of the old functions get deleted?
>
> What happens if there are existing references to the function using the
> old parameter list?
>
> The current approach is that if you want to change the parameter list or
> result type, you have to issue DROP FUNCTION, with the resulting cascade
> of any dependent objects. I think trying to change that would be a very
> bad idea. It'd create a real mess in terms of consistency of views, and
> what does it really buy you notationally over DROP/CREATE?
What I see is that the overloading is a very cool feature, but is not
necessary in most cases, and it introduces unnecessary administration
hassles. If there would be an attribute stating if a procedure has been
created overlodable (enabled by default, for backwards-compabitility),
then CREATE OR REPLACE would always replace the current one, regardless
of the parameters, and DROP would not require any parameters at all, and
a creation of a function with the NOOVERLOAD attribute would not be
allowed if there is already a function marked for overloading.
Cheers,
Ezequiel Tolnay
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ezequiel Tolnay | 2005-07-22 03:23:17 | Re: Wishlist? |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-07-22 02:14:42 | Re: Strange input/cast semantics for inet |