| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: variadic function support |
| Date: | 2008-07-14 16:38:17 |
| Message-ID: | 27150.1216053497@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I don't have a strong opinion, but allowing zero-argument variadic
> function calls -- and therefore causing foo(variadic int[]) and
> foo(variadic text[]) to conflict -- makes more sense than requiring one
> argument.
I hadn't even thought about that point, but the idea that those two
would conflict bothers me quite a lot. Not least because there's no
reasonable way to enforce it with the existing unique indexes on pg_proc.
I think you'd have to leave the variadic argument out of proargtypes
altogether, and that seems mad.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-07-14 16:49:11 | Re: variadic function support |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-07-14 16:25:58 | Re: variadic function support |