2008/6/24 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if
>> the syntax were like
>>
>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int[])
>>
>> or maybe even better
>>
>> create function foo (a text, variadic b int)
>>
>> since (a) this makes it much more obvious to the reader what the
>> function might match, and (b) it leaves the door open for marking
>> multiple parameters as variadic, if we can figure out what that means.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes. I understand from the family Java expert that (surface syntax issues
> aside) the second is similar to the way Java does this, in fact, so there's
> some precedent. That would mean that your first would actually mean each
> variadic arg has to be an array of ints, which we might well want to provide
> for.
>
> So with that modification I'll be lots happier with the feature.
I don't see problem with your syntax. It well block combination OUT
and VARIADIC parameter - my one request, variadic parameter have to be
array. It's more consistent with following procedure implementation -
inside procedures is really array.
sample:
CREATE OR REPLACE least(varidic values numeric[]) --< ARRAY
RETURNS numeric AS $$
SELECT $1[i] --< ARRAY
FROM
Regards
Pavel Stehule
p.s. with one exception "any", because there isn't possible array from "any"
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>