From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: variadic function support |
Date: | 2008-06-25 16:11:12 |
Message-ID: | 162867790806250911r4ea5fd70y76736ed4370485b4@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
2008/6/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if
>>>> the syntax were like
>>>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int[])
>>>> or maybe even better
>>>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int)
>
>> I don't see problem with your syntax. It well block combination OUT
>> and VARIADIC parameter - my one request, variadic parameter have to be
>> array.
>
> Well, we should certainly store the parameter type as an array in
> proargtypes, because that makes this feature transparent to all the
> PLs. However, it doesn't follow that the CREATE FUNCTION syntax
> has to specify the array type rather than the element type. I think
> the Java precedent might be good reason to go with using the element
> type in the function declaration.
>
I am playing with this now and two versions of proargtypes is 30% more
ugly code - mostly pg_dump and paradoxically remove function -
because currently RemoveFuncStatement lost argmode, so I am missing
info about variadic parameter and I can't simply transformation from
element to array. I thing, it isn't good way.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dickson S. Guedes | 2008-06-26 00:56:46 | Re: TODO item: Have psql show current values for a sequence |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-06-25 14:09:28 | Re: variadic function support |