Re: Fwd: Proposal: variant of regclass

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Looks good, committed with a bit of further cleanup.
>
> I had not actually paid attention to the non-regclass parts of this, and
> now that I look, I've got to say that it seems borderline insane to have
> chosen to implement regproc/regoper rather than regprocedure/regoperator.
> The types implemented here are incapable of dealing with overloaded names,
> which --- particularly in the operator case --- makes them close to
> useless.  I don't think this code was ready to commit.

Well, I noticed that, too, but I didn't think it was my job to tell
the patch author what functions he should have wanted.  A follow-on
patch to add to_regprocedure and to_regoperator wouldn't be much work,
if you want that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company