Re: Function call
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Function call |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25023.1075227225@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Function call (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Function call
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Dennis Bjorklund wrote: >> Thinking more about it, I'm not sure if it really is an important >> addition at all. I've got a number of requests for the feature. so >> there are people that want it, that much I know. > I like it very much, and I think mostly everyone else does, too. It's > just a question of what syntax to use. There are some pretty severe implementation problems that I haven't seen mentioned yet. In particular, how will you avoid individually trawling through every function with a matching name to try to match up the arguments? The index on proargtypes won't help you if you don't know what order the arguments are actually in. And I think the heuristics in func_select_candidate() that involve comparing matches at "the same argument position" will break down completely. (Adding default values would make overloaded functions an order of magnitude slower yet, not to mention outright ambiguous.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: