2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> I don't think this is right at all.
>
>> yes, this isn't clear. My arguments for change:
>
>> a) the behave depends on types - "any" is different than others.
>
> So what? "variadic any" is different in a lot of ways.
>
implementation is different, but from users perspective there can not
be differences. I am not sure. From my programmer's view is all ok.
But I believe so from customer view, there can be a surprise - because
NULL value doesn't skip function call.
>> b) optimization over fmgr doesn't work now.
>> b1. some possible const null and strict are ignored
>
> That's a matter of definition.
>
>> b2. array is non const always - so pre eval doesn't work for variadic
>
> You'd need to explain what you mean by that. An ARRAY[] construct is
> subject to const-folding AFAICS.
I am sorry. I was confused. This optimization will work. Only NULL is problem.
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
