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: | 2008-06-26 15:03:19 |
Message-ID: | 162867790806260803i79d90437n6ad2fe02c5f3ea52@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.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Hello
this is third variant with variadic argumen as scalar. But I still
strongly prefer second variant with conformance declared variadic
array with used array variable.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
variadic.2.2.1.diff | text/x-patch | 35.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-06-26 15:04:34 | Re: Fix pg_ctl restart bug |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-06-26 14:43:39 | Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches |