Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch
Date
Msg-id 162867790908101204g48cbcbffqa254ce7c4541b7b8@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
2009/8/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Oh, another thing: the present restriction that all function parameters
> after the first one with a default must also have defaults is based on
> limitations of positional call notation.  Does it make sense to relax
> that restriction once we allow named call notation, and if so what
> should we do exactly?  (This could be addressed in a followup patch,
> it doesn't necessarily have to be dealt with immediately.)
>

Yes, this rule should be useless. But with the remove of this rule, we
have to modify algorithm for positional notation. It depends on this
rule.

regards
Pavel Stehule
>                        regards, tom lane
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/Perl crash when using threaded perl