> As far as the "variadic int" versus "variadic int" business, I'm
> starting to agree with Pavel that "variadic int" offers less potential
> for confusion. In particular, it seems to make it more obvious for the
> function author that the argument he receives is an array. Also, the
> other one would mean that what we put into pg_proc.proargtypes doesn't
> agree directly with what the user thinks the argument types are. While
> I think we could force that to work, it's not exactly satisfying the
> principle of least surprise.
> One issue that just occurred to me: what if a variadic function wants to
> turn around and call another variadic function, passing the same array
> argument on to the second one? This is closely akin to the problem
> faced by C "..." functions, and the solutions are pretty ugly (sprintf
> vs vsprintf for instance). Can we do any better? At least in the
> polymorphic case, I'm not sure we can :-(.
> regards, tom lane
maybe with some flag like PARAMS?
SELECT least(PARAMS ARRAY[1,2,3,4,5,6])
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2008-07-14 13:17:32|
|Subject: Re: variadic function support|
|Previous:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2008-07-14 03:50:02|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch|