On 12/06/2015 10:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> I see. The reference from pg_operator to pg_proc is by OID rather than
>> function name, so I didn't find them. Is that because the function is
>> overloaded?
> Yeah, I suppose so --- regproc can't resolve overloaded function names.
>
>> It's kind of odd that these are the only operators (at
>> first glance) that are set up like that.
> I think the customary thing when creating functions meant as operator
> support is to give them unique names. These weren't done that way ...
> I wasn't involved, but I wonder whether there was uncertainty as to
> whether these should be documented as functions or operators.
>
>
If we want to require that then perhaps we should have a check for it? I
don't recall the exact reasoning so many months later, but you're
probably right about how it came about.
cheers
andrew