On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Is *the path* below the same as "search path* in other
> postings about this thread ?
I think so. I believe the path I've been talking about is the one in step
> Maybe Peter's posting isn't the one exactly what I have to
> ask but there are too many postings for me to follow.
> Hiroshi Inoue
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bill Studenmund writes:
> > > Does SQL'99 say anything about this?
> > Yes, though, as usual, you have to twist your brain a little to understand
> > it. My understanding is that for a function call of the form "foo(a, b)"
> > it goes like this:
> > 1. Find all functions named "foo" in the current database. This is the
> > set of "possibly candidate routines".
> > 2. Drop all routines that you do not have EXECUTE privilege for. This is
> > the set of "executable routines".
> > 3. Drop all routines that do not have compatible parameter lists. This is
> > the set of "invocable routines".
> > 4. Drop all routines whose schema is not in the path. This is the set of
> > "candidate routines".
> > 5. If you have more than one routine left, eliminate some routines
> > according to type precedence rules. (We do some form of this, SQL99
> > specifies something different.) This yields the set of "candidate subject
> > routines".
> > 6. Choose the routine whose schema is earliest in the path as the "subject
> > routine".
> > Execute the subject routine. Phew!
> > This doesn't look glaringly wrong to me, so maybe you want to consider it.
> > Please note step 2.
> > --
> > Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-01-29 00:29:48|
|Subject: 7.2 RPMs (Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL v7.2rc2 Released)|
|Previous:||From: Andre Holzner||Date: 2002-01-28 23:52:21|
|Subject: plpgsql function with more than one array argument|