| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Date: | 2009-09-27 04:37:03 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790909262137y7a9ac557h341ed2be621998a0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "However, a named variadic argument can only be called the way shown in
> the example above. The VARIADIC keyword must not be specified and a
> variadic notation of all arguments is not supported. To use variadic
> argument lists you must use positional notation instead."
>
> What is the intended behavior? I think we should always require VARIADIC
> to be specified regardless of using named notation.
>
maybe we could to support variadic named parameters in future - then
using VARIADIC keyword should be necessary - like
foo(10 AS p1, 20 AS p1, 30 AS p3) is equalent of
foo(VARIADIC ARRAY[10,20] AS p1, 30 AS p3)
if we plan this feature, the VARIADIC keyword have to be mandatory.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> I'm still reviewing the code.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-27 04:40:11 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-27 03:44:02 | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |