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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us [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])
