On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I wonder whether the whole architecture is wrong here. Perhaps when a >> function is created with N arguments of which M have default values, >> we should actually create M entries in pg_proc: one for each possible >> number of arguments from N-M up through N. > > That's been considered and rejected before, in the context of the > variadic-function patch which has a lot of the same issues. What it > mostly does is bloat pg_proc.
Only if you have a large number of functions with a large number of optional arguments each. That's possible, I suppose, but it hardly seems likely, or worth worrying about. >> I think this would kill all of the problems reported thus far at one >> blow. > > No, it doesn't resolve any of them ... particularly not the ones > associated with defaults for polymorphics. I think that's hyperbole. You would probably still need to forbid non-polymorphic defaults for polymorphic parameters (you might be able to make NULL work, and maybe the empty array for anyarray... not sure), but I think that most of the other issues you raised would be addressed by my proposal. You may hate it anyway; I'm OK with that. :-) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
