> > Ah, yeah, you could change the function to have more parameters, > given the assumption that all calls will be named-parameter style. > I still suggest that my proposal is more robust for the case where > the dump lists parameters that the receiving system doesn't have. >
So what's the behavior when the user fails to supply a parameter that is currently NOT NULL checked (example: avg_witdth)? Is that a WARN-and-exit?
