From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
Date: | 2008-11-26 22:14:19 |
Message-ID: | 162867790811261414w4a22e9edj4445d8da47794377@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
I am sending actualized versions - I accepted Tom's comments - default
expressions are serialised List stored in text field.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2008/11/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On Monday 24 November 2008 23:21:15 Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Default parameters are implemented similar to variadic functions - so
>>> no changes on PL part - all changes are on caller part.
>
>> Then I don't understand why you need this special data type instead of using
>> an array of text with nulls for parameters without default.
>
> I'm not even sure you need to store any nulls. We're going to require
> defaults to be provided for the last N parameters consecutively, right?
> So that's just what the array contents are. Or maybe it's not an array
> at all but a single text item containing the representation of a List
> --- compare the storage of index expressions. There shouldn't be any
> need to read the contents of the value during function resolution;
> an appropriate representation will have the number of non-defaultable
> parameters stored as a separate integer column.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
defaults.diff.gz | application/x-gzip | 95.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2008-11-26 22:24:01 | Re: What's going on with pgfoundry? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-11-26 22:12:42 | Re: What's going on with pgfoundry? |