Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com
> <mailto:josh@agliodbs.com>> wrote: However, there are some other
> issues to be resolved:
>
> (1) what should be the interaction of DEFAULT parameters and domains
> with defaults?
>
> The function's DEFAULT parameter should take precedence over the
> default of the domain.
I think Josh was pondering whether
create domain myint as int default 0;
create function f(i myint) ...;
should behave like
create function f(i myint default 0) ...;
and hence call f(0) if you do "select f();", or instead
raise an error because no f with zero parameters is defined (as it does
now).
I'd say no, because "no default" should be treated the same as "default
null", so for consistency we'd then have to also support
create function g(i int) ...;
select g();
And of course throw an error if there was another function defined as
create function g() ...;
This way leads to madness...
If one really wanted to do that, there'd have to be an OPTIONAL clause
for function parameters that works like DEFAULT, but doesn't take a
default value and instead uses the type's default (NULL except for
domains with DEFAULT clause). But I wouldn't got that far, personally...
best regards,
Florian Pflug