public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Dominique Devienne <[email protected]>
Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CALL and named parameters
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 10:36:01 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFCRh-8-sKZS7-xFO=Ku0waTjKfm0qhGVWWKZ9qsgzJEcPK7BA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFCRh-_iLoUtMAtyunw_-O6sgpWo04sOmB38MUVNpuQVSkL_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFj8pRCyW4E5OnZDGvk_YnPqaS_PfK-VKJOKGndC-gtAtDOtBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFCRh-9XkFS==OwSB6jgY84L5d4PkV_Y9MxLgk=NVx0Z8W3o_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKFQuwaGO-pmBVc2Vk9vwmbkhNpxHeZM77=oCtG+Duoc-G58cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFCRh-8-sKZS7-xFO=Ku0waTjKfm0qhGVWWKZ9qsgzJEcPK7BA@mail.gmail.com>

Dominique Devienne <[email protected]> writes:
> I was expecting an error telling me the procedure exists, but the
> argument name used in the call didn't. Then it's obvious to me what
> mistake I made. If argument names don't participate in the function's
> signature, why should they participate in the lookup? Do the lookup
> based on name and arg types (and count), that gives you a possible
> overload set, which in my second attempt (with a ::name cast) WAS AN
> EXACT MATCH for the signature, then give me an error about the
> argument name, that does NOT tell me the function doesn't exist.
> That's what I would expect.

Criticism in the form of a patch is welcome ;-).  The problem here
is that the matching rules are far more complicated than you seem
to think.  It's not clear to me that we can definitively say that
"we would have had a match except the argument name was wrong".
If it is possible to know that, it's quite a few subroutines below
where the error is actually issued (see ParseFuncOrColumn ->
func_get_detail -> FuncnameGetCandidates -> MatchNamedCall).
Maybe there's some fairly painless change that could be made in
that rat's nest, but I lack enough caffeine to see it.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (2+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: CALL and named parameters
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox