2014-02-26 20:36 GMT+01:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: > > On 02/26/2014 01:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> On 02/26/2014 10:15 AM, salah jubeh wrote: >> >>> I think, there is a difference between optional parameters and default >>> parameter values. So, my suggestion would be something like this. >>> SELECT default_test(1,3, DEFAULT); -- match function number 1 >>> >>> SELECT default_test(1,3); -- match the function number 2 >>> >>> SELECT default_test(1); -- ERROR >>> Regards >>> >> This would break at least 4 major applications which I personally have >> worked on, and the benefit to users is unclear at best. >> >> One of the main reasons to *have* default parameters is to allow adding >> new parameters to existing functions without breaking old application >> code. So, -1 from me. >> >> > me too. > > The OP's statement that there is a difference between default params and > optional params doesn't compute. The only way params are optional is that > they have a default. Treating these as somehow independent is a nonsense. > > Furthermore, if we dropped function 2, then > > select default_test(1,3) > > would be a call to function 1. Then, if we followed this proposal, > creating function 2 would magically steer that call to function 2 instead. > Talk about a footgun, and possibly a security risk too. > > more overloaded functions with similar type signature is just dangerous and bad practice.
We would to disallow it. Regards Pavel > > cheers > > andrew > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
