On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 17:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
>From a semantic standpoint, I lean towards requiring the VARIADIC keyword consistently between named and positional notation. It seems strange to me if we have a situation where changing the call: foo(a, b, VARIADIC c) to be more explicit by using named call notation: foo(a AS x, b AS y, VARIADIC c AS z) is "less correct" in the sense that the VARIADIC keyword goes from "required" to "ignored". Also, requiring VARIADIC seems to guard us better against future changes, which seemed like a concern before. I don't have a strong opinion or a specific problem with making VARIADIC optional, so it's OK with me. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers