Tom Lane wrote:
Gevik Babakhani writes:
I was wondering what the philosophy is behind letting an "ambiguous"
function be created in the first place. Is this for backwards
compatibility or perhaps for historical reasons?
Neither; it's a feature, and one we quite like. For example, would you
Gevik Babakhani writes:
> I was wondering what the philosophy is behind letting an "ambiguous"
> function be created in the first place. Is this for backwards
> compatibility or perhaps for historical reasons?
Neither; it's a feature, and one we quite like. For example, would you
really prefer
2009/6/4 Gevik Babakhani :
> I was wondering what the philosophy is behind letting an "ambiguous"
> function be created in the first place. Is this for backwards compatibility
> or perhaps for historical reasons? Could someone clarify this please?
>
This is +/- for historical reasons. We used orig
I was wondering what the philosophy is behind letting an "ambiguous"
function be created in the first place. Is this for backwards
compatibility or perhaps for historical reasons? Could someone clarify
this please?
Consider the following example:
(
FYI:
parse_func.c->ParseFuncOrColumn->164
p
