Re: Variadic parameters vs parameter defaults

2008/12/17 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On Wednesday 17 December 2008 02:07:35 Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, and another thing --- should variadic parameters be defaultable?
>> The current patch doesn't allow it but it looks more like an oversight
>> than anything that was thought through. The boundary case for variadic
>> parameters is a bit weird already:
>>
>> regression=# create function fv (f1 int, f2 variadic int[]) returns int
>> regression-# as 'select $1' language sql;
>> CREATE FUNCTION
>
>> regression=# select fv(1);
>> ERROR: function fv(integer) does not exist
>> LINE 1: select fv(1);
>> ^
>> HINT: No function matches the given name and argument types. You might
>> need to add explicit type casts.
>
> That looks like a bug to me. Anything that you can do with 1 to N items
> should also work for zero.
>

no, when we discused about variadic functions we defined, so variadic
parameter should not be empty Please, look to archive.

Pavel

> Also, in C, variadic functions are quite commonly called with zero arguments
> in the variadic position.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>