Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:56:27 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Ash M <makmarath@hotmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function
 operation" on DB with functions having same name
Message-ID: <20190220055627.GH15532@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CAKJS1f9bAsZVodugqwAS6kSEtrOQKOEpdeBVJALR8iEZf9kHXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190212030927.GF1475@paquier.xyz>
 <CAKJS1f9=CdJotJBvjoQfNipPjaVXdDLN1+K-07QFehTGOYH+_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAOBaU_bPFBb=BA8Askv+1yvcrCFE0-zk3R8XwgbHTY4bhfy1fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAOBaU_bzP+8nmSaidDtkVBji8hxuXKwGHxjJ7yPRCYD4r-Sovw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJS1f9wOa1CdgFm27NusPZODnL9SkJzxyNuq88VywPj9gS3vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOBaU_Z1Sbd1ZtAjex59PFRKFqcZmJ8sy7s_mqX0T227kZ1Fkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJS1f-N9NC7K41fRwgRyHEUiBbOLB_Lmhsfu8AnHt2=ZkqBoQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="b2u6xDyV6U2OU5E0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKJS1f-N9NC7K41fRwgRyHEUiBbOLB_Lmhsfu8AnHt2=ZkqBoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--b2u6xDyV6U2OU5E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:57:19AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> Great. Thanks for reviewing it.

You forgot to change a call of LookupFuncWithArgs() in
CreateTransform().

-    address.objectId =3D LookupFuncWithArgs(objtype, castNode(ObjectWithAr=
gs, object), missing_ok);
+    address.objectId =3D LookupFuncWithArgs(objtype, castNode(ObjectWithAr=
gs, object),
+                                          missing_ok ? FUNCLOOKUP_ERRIFAMB=
IGUOUS :
+                                          FUNCLOOKUP_NORMAL);

LookupFuncWithArgs() calls itself LookupFuncName(), which may not use
the check type provided by the caller..  I think that the existing API
is already confusing enough, and this patch makes it a bit more
confusing by adding an extra error layer handling on top of it.
Wouldn't it be more simple from an error handling point of view to
move all the error handling into LookupFuncName() and let the caller
decide what kind of function type handling it expects from the start? =20
I think that the right call is to add the object type into the
arguments of LookupFuncName().
--
Michael

--b2u6xDyV6U2OU5E0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=N6YO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--b2u6xDyV6U2OU5E0--