On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Sergey Konoplev escribió: >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > People periodically ask for extensions flavored more or less like this, >> > but I'm suspicious of building any such thing into the core. There's too >> > little commonality in the exact conditions they want to search on. >> > Leaving it at the level of a scripting problem, as above, allows arbitrary >> > customization of the search condition. >> >> I understand the POV of both Evan and you here. However, I think that >> there might be a good solution for this particular case - to allow >> dropping functions by name only if it has the only signature, but if >> there are 2 or more signatures then print an error specifying all the >> forms of the function, eg.: >> >> ERROR: Can not drop function 'foo' because it has more then one >> signature: foo(integer), foo(text). > > But that doesn't solve Evan's request. He would want both functions > gone, not an error.
I was writing about some kind of a compromise. -- Kind regards, Sergey Konoplev PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp +1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979 gray...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
