Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jgd(at)well(dot)com
Subject: Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag
Date: 2010-02-09 18:08:49
Message-ID: 162867791002091008m22494ffdqa2291103d1311d28@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> So what?  "variadic any" is different in a lot of ways.
>
>> implementation is different, but from users perspective there can not
>> be differences. I am not sure. From my programmer's view is all ok.
>> But I believe so from customer view, there can be a surprise - because
>> NULL value doesn't skip function call.
>
> It's going to be a bit surprising in any case.  If I write
>
>        foo(1, VARIADIC ARRAY[2, NULL])
>
> then what I'm passing is not a null, and so I'd be surprised if the
> function wasn't executed.

>
> I think we should just document this, not make a definitional change
> that seems as likely to break applications as fix them.

really I am not sure, what is good solution. Maybe can speak some other.

Pavel

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-02-09 18:37:10 CreateFakeRelcacheEntry versus Hot Standby
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-02-09 17:56:52 Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag