Re: proposal: generic function, constructor function
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal: generic function, constructor function |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 12663.1200689999@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | proposal: generic function, constructor function ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: proposal: generic function, constructor function
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I propose two kinds of functions:
> a) generic functions - this function allows any params without any
> implicit casting (it can implemented only in C language).
Can't you do that already with ANYELEMENT, or at the worst ANY?
> It allows unspecified number of params
> without parser changes.
Why is that a good idea (and if you think it won't take parser changes,
you're wrong)?
> Limits: only one function with specified name can exists in schema.
This is why it's a bad idea. Please note that the unique index on
pg_proc cannot enforce that, even if we wanted such a restriction.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: