| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Variadic parameters vs parameter defaults |
| Date: | 2008-12-17 18:11:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1023.1229537515@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2008/12/17 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> That looks like a bug to me. Anything that you can do with 1 to N items
>> should also work for zero.
> no, when we discused about variadic functions we defined, so variadic
> parameter should not be empty Please, look to archive.
Yeah, the problem is to infer a datatype when there are no actual
arguments to look at. If we wanted to drop "variadic anyarray" then
the corner case wouldn't be a problem, but that cure is worse than
the disease.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-12-17 18:17:43 | Re: Variadic parameters vs parameter defaults |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-12-17 17:55:36 | Re: Variadic parameters vs parameter defaults |