On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > What I really > care about is that we don't talk ourselves into needing a zillion > constructor functions. Making things work with a single constructor > function seems to me to simplify life quite a bit, and allowing there > seems essential for that.
I think we pretty much all agree on that. However, you did see the note about the difficulty of using default parameters in built-in functions, right? I ultimately ended up with 4 constructors, each with the same name but 0, 1, 2, and 3 parameters. Suggestions welcome. > (I am also vaguely wondering what happens if if you have a text > range.... is (nubile, null) ambiguous?) There are a few ways to handle that. I would lean toward parsing the NULL as a special keyword, and then rejecting it (does it matter if it's upper case?). Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers