> > As far as the "variadic int" versus "variadic int[]" business, I'm > starting to agree with Pavel that "variadic int[]" offers less potential > for confusion. In particular, it seems to make it more obvious for the > function author that the argument he receives is an array. Also, the > other one would mean that what we put into pg_proc.proargtypes doesn't > agree directly with what the user thinks the argument types are. While > I think we could force that to work, it's not exactly satisfying the > principle of least surprise. > > > One issue that just occurred to me: what if a variadic function wants to > turn around and call another variadic function, passing the same array > argument on to the second one? This is closely akin to the problem > faced by C "..." functions, and the solutions are pretty ugly (sprintf > vs vsprintf for instance). Can we do any better? At least in the > polymorphic case, I'm not sure we can :-(. > > regards, tom lane >
maybe with some flag like PARAMS? SELECT least(PARAMS ARRAY[1,2,3,4,5,6]) Regards Pavel Stehule -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
