On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Incidently the fix looks quite simple. See patch attached.
>
> ISTM this patch effectively proposes to make procedures have their own
> namespace yet still live in pg_proc. That is the worst of all possible
> worlds IMO. Somewhere early in this patch series, I complained that
> procedures should be in a different namespace and therefore not be kept
> in pg_proc but in some new catalog. That argument was rejected on the
> grounds that SQL requires them to be in the same namespace, which I
> wasn't particularly sold on, but that's where we are. If they are in
> the same namespace, though, we have to live with the consequences of
> that, including ambiguity. Otherwise there will soon be questions
> like "well, why can't I create both function foo(int) and procedure
> foo(int), seeing that there's no question which of them a particular
> statement intends to call?".
>
That question did cross my mind and I think that's a valid question.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
