On mån, 2010-01-11 at 12:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think you could probably use the existing tag field; no need for a new
> >> one.
> 
> > Sorry, which tag field are you referring to?
> 
> The one called "tag" in the source code.  It prints out as "Name":
> 
> --
> -- Name: binary_coercible(oid, oid); Type: FUNCTION; Schema: public; Owner: postgres
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> --

Um, that tag is the "name", and if you change that, the name in CREATE
FUNCTION also changes.  I was initially thinking in that direction, but
it seems it won't be feasible without significant refactoring.

In the mean time, hacking it into the sort function itself as a special
case works out fine, per attached patch.  One might frown upon such an
exception, but then again, function overloading is an exception to the
one-name-per-object rule all over the place anyway. ;-)

In response to

• Re: pg_dump sort order for functions at 2010-01-11 17:54:10 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pg_dump sort order for functions at 2010-01-12 14:44:55 from Tom Lane
• Re: pg_dump sort order for functions at 2010-02-15 14:48:11 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Chernow	Date: 2010-01-12 14:36:33
	Subject: Re: Typed tables
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-01-12 14:25:59
	Subject: Re: NOT NULL violation and error-message