On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Looks good, committed with a bit of further cleanup. > > I had not actually paid attention to the non-regclass parts of this, and > now that I look, I've got to say that it seems borderline insane to have > chosen to implement regproc/regoper rather than regprocedure/regoperator. > The types implemented here are incapable of dealing with overloaded names, > which --- particularly in the operator case --- makes them close to > useless. I don't think this code was ready to commit.
Well, I noticed that, too, but I didn't think it was my job to tell the patch author what functions he should have wanted. A follow-on patch to add to_regprocedure and to_regoperator wouldn't be much work, if you want that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
