Re: Wrong parameter names for make_interval (Postgres 13)

po 5. 10. 2020 v 17:53 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > po 5. 10. 2020 v 15:56 odesílatel Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>
> napsal:
> >> So instead of
> >> make_interval ( [ year int [, month int [, week int [, day int [, hour
> >> int [, min int [, sec double precision ]]]]]]] )
> >> it should be
> >> make_interval ( [ years int [, months int [, weeks int [, days int
> >> [,hours int [, mins int [, secs double precision ]]]]]]] )
>
> Right, fixed.
>
> > this syntax is not correct too
> > It should be
> > make_interval( years int default 0, month int default 0, days int
> > default 0, hours int default 0, secs double precision default 0)
>
> IIRC, I intentionally changed that in v13; the existence of the defaults
> is sufficiently covered by the text "... fields, each of which can default
> to zero". I think that was partly motivated by trying to get the function
> signature to fit into limited space. The final docs-table design we ended
> up with might allow undoing it, but I don't see any real reason to. The
> other way is more verbose and not any clearer.
>

I don't understand,

the syntax [ a [, b]] means

so a and b are optional, but b can be used only when a is used. But for
make_interval I can use "months" arguments without specification of "years"
argument.

I don't know the correct BNF for arguments with default values, but using
this doesn't look correct.

Regards

Pavel

> I spent a little bit of time scanning for other discrepancies between
> func.sgml and pg_proc.proargnames, and found several, mostly though
> not exclusively in the JSON functions. In these other cases, though,
> I think there might be a good argument for making pg_proc fit the docs
> not the other way around. In the JSON functions, for example, pg_proc
> randomly has some functions calling the main JSON[B] input "target"
> while others call it "from_json" or "json_in". I'm not real sure
> which of those names is preferable, but inconsistency is not preferable.
>
> regards, tom lane
>