2008/6/25 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if >>>> the syntax were like >>>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int[]) >>>> or maybe even better >>>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int) > >> I don't see problem with your syntax. It well block combination OUT >> and VARIADIC parameter - my one request, variadic parameter have to be >> array. > > Well, we should certainly store the parameter type as an array in > proargtypes, because that makes this feature transparent to all the > PLs. However, it doesn't follow that the CREATE FUNCTION syntax > has to specify the array type rather than the element type. I think > the Java precedent might be good reason to go with using the element > type in the function declaration. >
I am playing with this now and two versions of proargtypes is 30% more ugly code - mostly pg_dump and paradoxically remove function - because currently RemoveFuncStatement lost argmode, so I am missing info about variadic parameter and I can't simply transformation from element to array. I thing, it isn't good way. Regards Pavel Stehule > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
