Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1
Date: 2004-10-21 17:16:25
Message-ID: 200410211016.25093.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jim,

> Yes, but using overloading to implement defaults is a pain. Imagine how
> much you need to overload to have 5 default arguments; that equates to 4
> stub functions/prodecudes. In the case of adding a single parameter it's
> not that bad, but it becomes very onerous if you're trying to provide
> default values for a bunch of parameters.

See follow-up discussion regarding ambiguity within overloading schemes.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-10-21 18:10:48 Should libpq set close-on-exec flag on its socket?
Previous Message simon 2004-10-21 17:16:01 Re: Re: Why frequently updated tables are an issue