From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: expression evaluation with expected datatypes |
Date: | 2012-07-10 15:49:49 |
Message-ID: | 22439.1341935389@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 10 10:56:50 -0400 2012:
>> What's to solve? Presumably the WITH function name would take
>> precedence over anything in the catalogs, the same as WITH query names
>> take precedence over actual tables.
> Hm, would the newly defined function mask all regular functions with
> that name?
Only the ones with the same parameter types ...
> If not, a seemingly innocuous change in a query could mean
> calling not the function defined in the WITH FUNCTION clause but another
> one with the same name but different parameter count/types.
I would see this working as if the WITH function appeared in a schema
earlier in the search path than any regular functions. So the risk is
not greater, nor indeed different, than from any other overloaded
function name.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-07-10 15:50:18 | Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-07-10 15:46:46 | Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux |