| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu (Thomas G(dot) Lockhart) |
| Cc: | brett(at)abraxas(dot)scene(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] functions with same name, different args |
| Date: | 1998-01-28 16:34:23 |
| Message-ID: | 199801281634.LAA14291@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > I notice that all the functions with the same name but different args
> > are actually sql statements which SELECT the result of the function
> > call using a different (and unique) name..
> >
> > Wouldn't this cause slowdowns? Shouldn't you be able to have a
> > different name for your function in pgsql than in the shared library,
> > without having to resort to such hacks?
>
> Actually, we were pretty happy when Edmund Mergl found this mechanism.
> I've thought about making changes to allow compiled code to do the same
> thing, but we've had other more important issues to work on. Send
> patches if you want something different.
Actually the problem was that SQL functions can compare args and call
the proper function, while C functions just get called without any arg
comparisons.
--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Shapiro | 1998-01-28 16:50:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Domain Problem? |
| Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-01-28 16:22:28 | Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by |