Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: variadic function support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: variadic function support
Date: 2008-07-14 16:38:17
Message-ID: 27150.1216053497@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I don't have a strong opinion, but allowing zero-argument variadic
> function calls -- and therefore causing foo(variadic int[]) and
> foo(variadic text[]) to conflict -- makes more sense than requiring one
> argument.

I hadn't even thought about that point, but the idea that those two
would conflict bothers me quite a lot.  Not least because there's no
reasonable way to enforce it with the existing unique indexes on pg_proc.
I think you'd have to leave the variadic argument out of proargtypes
altogether, and that seems mad.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-07-14 16:49:11
Subject: Re: variadic function support
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-07-14 16:25:58
Subject: Re: variadic function support

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group