| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Date: | 2009-10-07 23:15:59 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070910071615r422d19fct6ebfa92b4bafcd1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think what he was considering was the question of insisting that
> the VARIADIC keyword be attached to the named argument that actually
> matches the VARIADIC parameter. I think we could do it, but it might
> be a bit of a wart. I notice that right now, an unnecessary VARIADIC
> keyword in a regular positional call does not cause an error, it's just
> ignored --- so we're already being a bit lax with it.
I'd be more inclined to to tighten up the place where we're currently
being lax than to treat additional situations in a similarly lax
manner.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-07 23:38:03 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-10-07 22:56:08 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |