Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> What would you consider "proper and full support"?
>>>
>> I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it.
>>
>
> That's a fairly weak argument for rejecting a patch that provides a
> feature many people have asked for.
>
OK. Let me be a bit more specific. I think (forcing myself to be a bit
more analytic than I have been up to now) my main objection is that the
variadic part of the parameters should be marked explicitly in the
formal parameter list.
I don't mind having it limited to a single typed array - as you say we
probably don't want someone implementing sprintf.
But if I have
foo( a text, b int[])
it looks odd if both these calls are legal:
foo('a',1,2,3,)
foo('a',ARRAY[1,2,3])
which I understand would be the case with the current patch.
I'm also still curious to know how the following would be handled:
foo(a text[], b text[])
cheers
andrew
