2008/12/17 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > 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. > :-)
it's not good solution, problem is anywhere else - we raise exception about ambigonous call to early, when we don't have all knowleadges. Pavel > > ...Robert > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers