On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:48 AM Haribabu Kommi > <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On 2018-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:41:22AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > >> > > So 6 new functions needs to be added to cover all the above cases, > >> > > IMO, we may need functions for all combinations, because I feel some > >> > > user may have the requirement of left out combination, in case if > we choose > >> > > only some combinations. > >> > > >> > That's bloating the interface in my opinion. > >> > >> I understand. > >> > >> Let's call for a vote from a larger audience. It's important to get > >> this interface right, ISTM. > > > > 4. Single API with -1 as invalid value, treat NULL as no matching. (Only > problem > > with this approach is till now -1 is also a valid queryid, but setting > -1 as queryid > > needs to be avoided. > > > > Hmm, can we use 0 as default value without any such caveat? > Yes, with strict and 0 as default value can work. If there is no problem, I can go ahead with the above changes? Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
