From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: variadic function support |
Date: | 2008-06-25 08:19:06 |
Message-ID: | 162867790806250119h7de5ddb9m59f0a0f668d63cef@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
2008/6/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if
>>>> the syntax were like
>>>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int[])
>>>> or maybe even better
>>>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int)
>
>> I don't see problem with your syntax. It well block combination OUT
>> and VARIADIC parameter - my one request, variadic parameter have to be
>> array.
>
> Well, we should certainly store the parameter type as an array in
> proargtypes, because that makes this feature transparent to all the
> PLs. However, it doesn't follow that the CREATE FUNCTION syntax
> has to specify the array type rather than the element type. I think
> the Java precedent might be good reason to go with using the element
> type in the function declaration.
There is only one break - psql functions description. It needs
publishing get_element_type function and ofcourse all managers need
update.
regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-06-25 09:16:08 | Re: variadic function support |
Previous Message | daveg | 2008-06-25 03:57:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |