Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Are these illustrating a problem with the function definition, or is it
> > happening because it is the first time we are calling the same function
> > with one and more than one parameter?
>
> The function definition is broken. While it could be fixed (by
> explicitly testing fcinfo->nargs, rather than assuming positions
> beyond nargs are valid) I am not willing to remove the opr_sanity
> check that is complaining. Accordingly, a better solution would be
> to make two C-code wrapper functions, one for the single-parameter
> and one for the two-parameter case of each function.

Tom, how do I pass PG_FUNCTION_ARGS to another function, while adding a
new parameter? Would it be better to declare SQL functions to call new
functions with a prettyprint parameter of false?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073