From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions (fwd) |
Date: | 1999-09-29 13:55:15 |
Message-ID: | 3328.938613315@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> Is this a bug or feature ?
It's a bug. Fixing it will require a wholesale code revision, however
(see my prior postings about redesigning the function call interface).
This is something we need to do for 6.6, IMHO, not only because of
the NULL-argument issue but also because it will solve the portability
problems that are being created by the existing fmgr interface (Alpha
bugs, need to dumb down to -O0 on some platforms, etc). I've been
trying to summon the will to get started on it, but other things keep
getting in the way...
> Also, it seems there is a limitation to a number of arguments.
Yes, 8. I'm not planning to do anything about that in the near term.
Even just making the limit configurable would be a lot of work :-(
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-09-29 14:03:05 | Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-09-29 13:47:16 | New notices? |