On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
And here is a patch for that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company