Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch

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: 2009-09-28 16:23:20
Message-ID: 162867790909280923jd902e7cx385c3d02432c6045@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2009/9/28 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:50 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> This is maybe too strict. I thing, so safe version is allow variadic
>> packed parameter with VARIADIC keyword as Jeff proposes.
>
> The combination of variadic parameters and named call notation is
> somewhat strange, on second thought. Can you identify a use case?
>

I have not any use case now. Simply when I have a variadic function,
then I would to allow call it with named notation. Some like

create or replace foo (a int, variadic b int[]) ...

SELECT foo(10 as int, variadic array[10,20] as b)

> If not, then it should probably be blocked in this version of the patch.
> Even if it makes sense from a syntax standpoint, it might be confusing
> to users.
>

when I though about control, I found so syntax with mandatory VARIADIC
is difficult implementable. So probably the most feasible solution for
this moment is to discard a variadic functions from set of functions
that are callable with named notation. So I thing we are in tune, and
I am going to update patch.

Regards
Pavel Stehule

> Robert, did you have a specific concern in mind? Do you see a behavior
> there that we might want to change in the future?
>
> Regards,
>        Jeff Davis
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dan Colish 2009-09-28 16:43:49 ECPG patch views [moved from RRR list]
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-09-28 16:12:02 Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch