Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Brendan Jurd
Subject Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL
Date
Msg-id 37ed240d0710142239h6096f42s423d80ea297c0a44@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL
List pgsql-patches
On 10/15/07, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > I did make a version of the patch which has the pg_proc entries for
> > quote_literal and quote_nullable both pointing to the same internal
> > function.  I thought this was a tidier solution, but it failed
> > regression test #5 in opr_sanity; apparently two entries in pg_proc
> > can't have the same prosrc and differing proisstrict?
>
> Sanity prevails, I guess. :-)
>

I'm all for the prevalance of sanity, but I'm not really clear on what
about the above scenario is not sane.

Suspect I'm missing something about the workings of pg_proc, but from
over here it seems like having a strict and a non-strict version of
the same function would be okay.  As long as the internal function is
rigged to handle null input properly, what's the problem?

It's only tangential to the patch itself, and I'm not challenging the
regression test.  Just curious about it.

Cheers,
BJ

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL
Next
From: "Brendan Jurd"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL