| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Date: | 2009-08-10 19:04:10 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790908101204g48cbcbffqa254ce7c4541b7b8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/8/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Oh, another thing: the present restriction that all function parameters
> after the first one with a default must also have defaults is based on
> limitations of positional call notation. Does it make sense to relax
> that restriction once we allow named call notation, and if so what
> should we do exactly? (This could be addressed in a followup patch,
> it doesn't necessarily have to be dealt with immediately.)
>
Yes, this rule should be useless. But with the remove of this rule, we
have to modify algorithm for positional notation. It depends on this
rule.
regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-10 19:09:41 | Re: PL/Perl crash when using threaded perl |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-10 18:59:22 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |