Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sergey Konoplev escribió: >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> People periodically ask for extensions flavored more or less like this, >>>> but I'm suspicious of building any such thing into the core. There's too >>>> little commonality in the exact conditions they want to search on. >>>> Leaving it at the level of a scripting problem, as above, allows arbitrary >>>> customization of the search condition. >>> I understand the POV of both Evan and you here. However, I think that >>> there might be a good solution for this particular case - to allow >>> dropping functions by name only if it has the only signature, but if >>> there are 2 or more signatures then print an error specifying all the >>> forms of the function, eg.: >>> >>> ERROR: Can not drop function 'foo' because it has more then one >>> signature: foo(integer), foo(text). >> But that doesn't solve Evan's request. He would want both functions >> gone, not an error. > I was writing about some kind of a compromise. My point was precisely that a compromise would satisfy nobody. There would be a few cases for which it was Exactly The Right Thing, and many more for which you'd still need to learn how to do the EXECUTE trick. I wonder whether we shouldn't address this by adding a few examples of that type of trick to the docs. Not sure where, though ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
