| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 | 
| Date: | 2004-10-07 23:30:25 | 
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0410080928570.20772@linuxworld.com.au | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
>  > On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>  >
>  > [snip]
>  >
>  >
>  >>Of course, this is as true of functions as it will be of procedures.  So half
>  >>the functionality that I'm angling for to support with calling named params
>  >>could be accomplished within the context of overloading just by extending the
>  >>named param patch in 8.0 to cover calling functions/SPs in the format above.
>  >
>  >
>  > We cannot use named parameter notation with functions due to overloading.
>  > Disregarding the idea of default values, consider:
>  >
>  > create function foo(i int, j int) ...
>  > create function foo(j int, i int) ...
>
> As I see the world ( it could be wrong ) these two functions above have
> the same signature, so the second declaration shall be not allowed, do you
> want put also the formal parameters names in the function signature ?
> Orrible.
Oops. Thought-o. I meant:
create function foo(i int, j text) ...
create function foo(j text, i int) ...
Their signature is now:
foo(int, text)
foo(text, int)
Which is legal.
Thanks,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2004-10-07 23:42:36 | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 | 
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-07 22:58:30 | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 |