Tom,
> Understood, but this seems like a bad design to me, because it's
> non-orthogonal.
Or just a natural consequence of our having loaded Functions down with all of
the functionality usually assigned to Procedures over the years.
> I think that named params would have no significant extra cost *when not
> used*, so I'm not sure the above concern is a big deal. (I do worry
> about the cost implications of defaultable parameters, however, as that
> seems likely to expand the search space for a matching function quite a
> bit.)
Well, since default params is one of the critical reasons to use named param
calling in the first place, I think this is a significant concern.
I'm also not looking forward to all of the "help" e-mails we'll get to
PGSQL-SQL in response to: "Your function cannot be created as specified due
to a namespace conflict." ... particularly if this happens during database
reload as a result of new functions in Template1.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
