Prev: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Next: [HACKERS] Why doesn't smgr_redo truncate the VM fork too?
From: Pavel Stehule on 9 Feb 2010 13:08
2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(a)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
>

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Next: [HACKERS] Why doesn't smgr_redo truncate the VM fork too?