Re: variadic function support

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
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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