From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
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 17:56:52 |
Message-ID: | 18702.1265738212@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-02-09 18:08:49 | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-02-09 17:44:42 | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |