Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, for functions and operators the name alone is not sufficient to
>> uniquely identify the object. Type regproc currently throws an error
>> if asked to convert a nonunique function name; that severely limits its
>> usefulness. I'm toying with allowing datatypes in the input string,
>> eg
>> 'sum(bigint)'::regproc
>> but I wonder if this will create compatibility problems. In particular,
>> should the regproc and regoperator output converters include datatype
>> indicators in the output string? (Always, never, only if not unique?)
> I'd be inclined to include datatype always. If you don't, how can you
> use this for pg_dump, etc?
pg_dump would probably actually prefer not having type info in the
output string; it'll just have to strip it off in most places. But
I don't have a good feeling for the needs of other applications,
so I was asking what other people thought.
If we supported both ways via two datatypes, we'd have all the bases
covered; I'm just wondering if it's worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
PS: interesting thought about enum ...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
