On 12/06/2015 10:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
I see. The reference from pg_operator to pg_proc is by OID rather than
function name, so I didn't find them. Is that because the function is
overloaded?
Yeah, I suppose so --- regproc can't resolve overloaded function names.
It's kind of odd that these are the only operators (at
first glance) that are set up like that.
I think the customary thing when creating functions meant as operator
support is to give them unique names. These weren't done that way ...
I wasn't involved, but I wonder whether there was uncertainty as to
whether these should be documented as functions or operators.
If we want to require that then perhaps we should have a check for it? I
don't recall the exact reasoning so many months later, but you're
probably right about how it came about.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
