Re: Another issue in default-values patch: defaults expanded too soon

"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I wonder whether the whole architecture is wrong here.  Perhaps when a
> function is created with N arguments of which M have default values,
> we should actually create M entries in pg_proc: one for each possible
> number of arguments from N-M up through N.

That's been considered and rejected before, in the context of the
variadic-function patch which has a lot of the same issues.  What it
mostly does is bloat pg_proc.

> I think this would kill all of the problems reported thus far at one
> blow.

No, it doesn't resolve any of them ... particularly not the ones
associated with defaults for polymorphics.
        regards, tom lane