Tom, > Understood, but this seems like a bad design to me, because it's > non-orthogonal.
Or just a natural consequence of our having loaded Functions down with all of the functionality usually assigned to Procedures over the years. > I think that named params would have no significant extra cost *when not > used*, so I'm not sure the above concern is a big deal. (I do worry > about the cost implications of defaultable parameters, however, as that > seems likely to expand the search space for a matching function quite a > bit.) Well, since default params is one of the critical reasons to use named param calling in the first place, I think this is a significant concern. I'm also not looking forward to all of the "help" e-mails we'll get to PGSQL-SQL in response to: "Your function cannot be created as specified due to a namespace conflict." ... particularly if this happens during database reload as a result of new functions in Template1. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
