| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2009-09-28 16:12:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1254154322.5640.274.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:50 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> This is maybe too strict. I thing, so safe version is allow variadic
> packed parameter with VARIADIC keyword as Jeff proposes.
The combination of variadic parameters and named call notation is
somewhat strange, on second thought. Can you identify a use case?
If not, then it should probably be blocked in this version of the patch.
Even if it makes sense from a syntax standpoint, it might be confusing
to users.
Robert, did you have a specific concern in mind? Do you see a behavior
there that we might want to change in the future?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-28 16:23:20 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-28 16:04:59 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |