On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Incidently the fix looks quite simple. See patch attached. > > ISTM this patch effectively proposes to make procedures have their own > namespace yet still live in pg_proc. That is the worst of all possible > worlds IMO. Somewhere early in this patch series, I complained that > procedures should be in a different namespace and therefore not be kept > in pg_proc but in some new catalog. That argument was rejected on the > grounds that SQL requires them to be in the same namespace, which I > wasn't particularly sold on, but that's where we are. If they are in > the same namespace, though, we have to live with the consequences of > that, including ambiguity. Otherwise there will soon be questions > like "well, why can't I create both function foo(int) and procedure > foo(int), seeing that there's no question which of them a particular > statement intends to call?". >
That question did cross my mind and I think that's a valid question. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
