On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think what he was considering was the question of insisting that
> the VARIADIC keyword be attached to the named argument that actually
> matches the VARIADIC parameter. I think we could do it, but it might
> be a bit of a wart. I notice that right now, an unnecessary VARIADIC
> keyword in a regular positional call does not cause an error, it's just
> ignored --- so we're already being a bit lax with it.
I'd be more inclined to to tighten up the place where we're currently
being lax than to treat additional situations in a similarly lax
manner.
...Robert
