| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 15:55:58 |
| Message-ID: | 15810.1228838158@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> what is problematic on GUC?
Basically, it's a bad idea to have GUCs that silently make significant
changes in the syntactic meaning of a query. We've learned that lesson
the hard way I think. There are places where we've been forced to do
it because of priority-one considerations like standards compatibility
(eg, standard_conforming_strings). This proposed feature doesn't carry
anywhere near the weight that would make me willing to put in another
such wart.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-09 15:56:10 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2008-12-09 15:52:39 | Windows buildfarm members |