Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2010-02-23 02:06:17
Message-ID: 201002230206.o1N26HN11502@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Can someone work on a patch to implement the document changes suggested
below?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 10:51 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > My renonc, please, try new patch. I forgot mark regproc.c file.
>
> I think the documentation around calling functions is disorganized:
>
> Variadic functions, functions with defaults, SRFs, out parameters, and
> polymorphism are all explained in 34.4, which is about SQL functions
> specifically.
>
> Overloading is in chapter 34 also, but not specifically in the SQL
> function section like the rest.
>
> Function calls themselves are only given 5 lines of explanation in
> 4.2.6, with no mention of things like the VARIADIC keyword.
>
> These complaints aren't about the patch, but we might want to consider
> some reorganization of those sections (probably a separate doc patch).
>
> The interaction with variadic functions appears to be misdocumented.
> >From the code and tests, the VARIADIC keyword appears to be optional
> when using named notation, but required when using positional notation.
> But the documentation says:
>
> "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.
>
> I'm still reviewing the code.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-02-23 02:17:20 Re: numeric_to_number() function skipping some digits
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-02-23 01:55:34 Re: [PATCH] 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server