2010/9/9 Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov>: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I'm with Robert: this would be a huge extra complication for a >> remarkably small amount of benefit. > > This is probably heresy, but unless it's required by the standard or > drop-dead simple to allow, I'd be fine with *not* supporting > overloading of stored procedure names based on argument types at > all. I can see the need for to support it for functions; I can't > think where it would be all that useful for stored procedures. If > unique stored procedure names were required, it seems we might be > able to allow assignment casts on parameters, which might be more > useful. > > I'm probably missing some good use case....
for example - value transformation from / to bytea CREATE FUNCTION send(int); CREATE FUNCTION send(text); CREATE FUNCTION recv(int); CREATE FUNCTION recv(text) then you can write BEGIN send('ahoj'); send(10); recv(textvar); recv(numvar); Regards Pavel Stehule > > -Kevin > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers