"Roger Moloney" <ramoloney(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> Having just done the first draft of a large migration from informix to
> postgres, I wanted to point out that the migration was hugely complicated by
> postgres inability to define default parameters
You can get that effect using function name overloading. For instance
create function f(x int, y int) ...
create function f(x int) ... as 'select f(x, 1)' ...
It's easier if the defaultable parameters are at the end, but I rather
wonder how your informix system is disambiguating the calls either
with a signature like that. If you leave off just one of the two
defaultable parameters, how does it know which?
> I dont want to make them output parameters as they are not output
> parameters. I am returning different output parameters. However it would be
> great if I could modify (and not pass back) the value of a input parameter.
Just use a differently named local variable, perhaps? Actually, because
of the scoping rules it seems to me to work fine even if they have the
regression=# create function ff(f1 int) returns int as $$
declare f1 int := coalesce(f1, 1);
end$$ language plpgsql;
regression=# select ff(3);
regression=# select ff(null);
> Any chance of allowing input parameters to be modified within the function
> body ?
That check is there to prevent mistakes, and I think it's a good one.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen||Date: 2007-08-30 08:57:11|
|Subject: Re: Problem with character encodings.|
|Previous:||From: Korumilli, Bala S (GE Healthcare)||Date: 2007-08-29 06:59:52|
|Subject: Problem with character encodings.|