Re: Is TG_NARGS/TG_ARGV just legacy, or what?

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is TG_NARGS/TG_ARGV just legacy, or what?
Date: 2006-03-04 23:59:59
Message-ID: 4862.24.211.165.134.1141516799.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus said:
> Folks,
>
> I was just building something and noticing the peculiar structure we've
> given to arguments to trigger procedures. Instead of declaring them
> normally, we pass them through the variables TG_NARGS and TG_ARGV[].
> This is inconsistent with the entire rest of Postgres, as well as
> making it hard to validate passed constants (e.g. if you pass the
> wrong number of arguments, you won't know it until execution time).
>
> Is there some sound technical reason not to use the standard argument
> declaration, or is this just something we've overlooked fixing?
>

I'm not sure it's broken ... just different.

It does have the advantage that you can call a single trigger function with
variable argument types/numbers. "Fixing" it would involve an unknown amount
of legacy breakage.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2006-03-05 00:23:47 Re: Automatic free space map filling
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2006-03-04 23:47:27 Re: Is TG_NARGS/TG_ARGV just legacy, or what?