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
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? |