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

Re: variadic function support

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(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 07:26:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
> As far as the "variadic int" versus "variadic int[]" business, I'm
> starting to agree with Pavel that "variadic int[]" offers less potential
> for confusion.  In particular, it seems to make it more obvious for the
> function author that the argument he receives is an array.  Also, the
> other one would mean that what we put into pg_proc.proargtypes doesn't
> agree directly with what the user thinks the argument types are.  While
> I think we could force that to work, it's not exactly satisfying the
> principle of least surprise.
> One issue that just occurred to me: what if a variadic function wants to
> turn around and call another variadic function, passing the same array
> argument on to the second one?  This is closely akin to the problem
> faced by C "..." functions, and the solutions are pretty ugly (sprintf
> vs vsprintf for instance).  Can we do any better?  At least in the
> polymorphic case, I'm not sure we can :-(.
>                        regards, tom lane

maybe with some flag like PARAMS?

SELECT least(PARAMS ARRAY[1,2,3,4,5,6])

Pavel Stehule

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-07-14 13:17:32
Subject: Re: variadic function support
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2008-07-14 03:50:02
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group