| From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Date: | 2002-01-24 00:18:18 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.33.0201231606090.7050-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> > True. But:
> >
> > 1) How often are you going to make routines with names that duplicate
> > those in the system schema, when you don't want them to be used?
>
> Sure, you want them used when the arguments match, but what about when
> they don't exactly?
> If the system schema has foo(integer) and in my schema I make a new type
> and then make a type(integer) and foo(type), when I call foo(1), do I
> really mean do a coersion to my type and call foo(type)?
Yes, you did. The documentation said that that would happen, so since you
made the call ambiguous, you wanted the coercion to happen. Or at least
you weren't concerned that it might.
Take care,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-24 00:20:43 | Re: Add OR REPLACE clauses to non-FUNCTION object creation |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-01-24 00:07:07 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |