Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch
Date: 2009-08-09 18:47:04
Message-ID: 15840.1249843624@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Oh, another thing: the present restriction that all function parameters
after the first one with a default must also have defaults is based on
limitations of positional call notation. Does it make sense to relax
that restriction once we allow named call notation, and if so what
should we do exactly? (This could be addressed in a followup patch,
it doesn't necessarily have to be dealt with immediately.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-08-09 18:56:39 Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-08-09 18:43:38 Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD