--On 9. August 2009 12:27:53 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
> argument for allowing a "mixed" notation (some of the parameters named
> and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
> and the user's-eye view, for no real benefit.
Hmm, Oracle has started supporting it in recent versions, too. So one
advantage would be at least some sort of compatibility for another favorite
database.
>From a user's point of view, i see one use case in calling functions with
multiple default argument values, where only one of those value needs to be
overwritten, e.g.
SELECT foo(1, 100, 'this' AS one);
SELECT foo(1, 102, 'other' AS two);
SELECT foo(1, 100, 'another' AS three);
where one, two, three are arguments with specific default values.
--
Thanks
Bernd