On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:56 AM Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? >
I would say wait for a few days (at least 2 days) to see if Alvaro or anybody else has an opinion on this. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
