Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > If we allow calling a variadic function using named notation, the > VARIADIC keyword is not strictly necessary, but I think we should > require it. It seems strange without it.
Yeah. My first thought was to just remove the check in FuncnameGetCandidates, which would have the effect of matching with or without VARIADIC. It would be self-consistent but probably surprising. But it should just be a small tweak to match only with VARIADIC. > Pavel indicated that there may be some implementation difficulty in > requiring the VARIADIC keyword when calling a variadic function using > named notation: I think what he was considering was the question of insisting that the VARIADIC keyword be attached to the named argument that actually matches the VARIADIC parameter. I think we could do it, but it might be a bit of a wart. I notice that right now, an unnecessary VARIADIC keyword in a regular positional call does not cause an error, it's just ignored --- so we're already being a bit lax with it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers