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>:
>>> 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.
>
> It's going to be a bit surprising in any case. If I write
>
> foo(1, VARIADIC ARRAY[2, NULL])
>
> then what I'm passing is not a null, and so I'd be surprised if the
> function wasn't executed.
>
> I think we should just document this, not make a definitional change
> that seems as likely to break applications as fix them.
really I am not sure, what is good solution. Maybe can speak some other.
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
