From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jgd(at)well(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |
Date: | 2010-02-09 18:08:49 |
Message-ID: | 162867791002091008m22494ffdqa2291103d1311d28@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> So what? "variadic any" is different in a lot of ways.
>
>> implementation is different, but from users perspective there can not
>> be differences. I am not sure. From my programmer's view is all ok.
>> But I believe so from customer view, there can be a surprise - because
>> NULL value doesn't skip function call.
>
> It's going to be a bit surprising in any case. If I write
>
> foo(1, VARIADIC ARRAY[2, NULL])
>
> then what I'm passing is not a null, and so I'd be surprised if the
> function wasn't executed.
>
> I think we should just document this, not make a definitional change
> that seems as likely to break applications as fix them.
really I am not sure, what is good solution. Maybe can speak some other.
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 18:37:10 | CreateFakeRelcacheEntry versus Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 17:56:52 | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |