Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The opr_sanity test checks the following:
> -- Considering only built-in procs (prolang = 12), look for multiple uses
> -- of the same internal function (ie, matching prosrc fields). It's OK to
> -- have several entries with different pronames for the same internal
> function,
> -- but conflicts in the number of arguments and other critical items should
> -- be complained of. (We don't check data types here; see next query.)
> Is this a leftover from the V0 fmgr days, or why is this not to be done?
> In particular, using one C function to implement a group of overloaded
> functions with different numbers of arguments seems useful.
Sure, but it's also a very uncommon usage, so the test still seems a
good idea to me. If you want to introduce such a function, I'd just
mark it as an expected exception to the test ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
