| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CALL and named parameters |
| Date: | 2025-08-07 13:30:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaGO-pmBVc2Vk9vwmbkhNpxHeZM77=oCtG+Duoc-G58cg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday, August 7, 2025, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> What's not nice is in the way it failed IMHO. I guess I persist it's
> not a user friendly message :)
Then write the error message you would have liked to see.
>
> Can you overload a function solely by changing an argument name?
No, the signature is only the name and input argument types.
> If not, as I suspect, then function lookup doesn't strictly depend on
> argument names (like in C++).
> So the function did exist, with the correct "signature" (ignoring
> argument names).
> And I was "just" using the wrong arg-name. That tripped me up.
How is it “just” an argument name when you are using named argument syntax?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-08-07 14:16:25 | Re: CALL and named parameters |
| Previous Message | Dominique Devienne | 2025-08-07 12:44:51 | Re: CALL and named parameters |