| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, rushabh(dot)lathia(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Function with defval returns error |
| Date: | 2008-12-18 14:36:18 |
| Message-ID: | 25595.1229610978@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This case *must* work:
>>
>> create function foo (f1 int)
>> create function foo (f1 int, f2 int = 42)
>>
>> select foo(10)
> I tried out C++, and it rejects this case:
> ...
> So, I'd rather reject the foo(10) call. The least-defaults rule doesn't
> strike me as very appealing.
OK, I think we're in agreement on this. I'll make it happen.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-18 14:41:45 | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-18 14:34:22 | Re: DTrace probes patch |