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

Re: variadic function support

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: variadic function support
Date: 2008-06-24 02:29:48
Message-ID: 48605C1C.8090300@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>   
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>     
>>> What would you consider "proper and full support"?
>>>       
>> I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it. 
>>     
>
> That's a fairly weak argument for rejecting a patch that provides a
> feature many people have asked for.
>   

OK. Let me be a bit more specific. I think (forcing myself to be a bit 
more analytic than I have been up to now) my main objection is that the 
variadic part of the parameters should be marked explicitly in the 
formal parameter list.

I don't mind having it limited to a single typed array - as you say we 
probably don't want someone implementing sprintf.

But if I have

  foo( a text, b int[])

it looks odd if both these calls are legal:

  foo('a',1,2,3,)
  foo('a',ARRAY[1,2,3])

which I understand would be the case with the current patch.

I'm also still curious to know how the following would be handled:

  foo(a text[], b text[])

cheers

andrew



In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-24 02:41:09
Subject: Re: variadic function support
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-24 00:59:17
Subject: Re: variadic function support

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