Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Are these illustrating a problem with the function definition, or is it
> > happening because it is the first time we are calling the same function
> > with one and more than one parameter?
> The function definition is broken.  While it could be fixed (by
> explicitly testing fcinfo->nargs, rather than assuming positions
> beyond nargs are valid) I am not willing to remove the opr_sanity
> check that is complaining.  Accordingly, a better solution would be
> to make two C-code wrapper functions, one for the single-parameter
> and one for the two-parameter case of each function.

Tom, how do I pass PG_FUNCTION_ARGS to another function, while adding a
new parameter?  Would it be better to declare SQL functions to call new
functions with a prettyprint parameter of false?

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to