salah jubeh wrote > Hello, > > I find default values confusing when a function is overloaded, below is an > example. > > > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION default_test (a INT DEFAULT 1, b INT DEFAULT 1, > C INT DEFAULT 1) RETURNS INT AS > $$ > BEGIN > RETURN a+b+c; > END; > $$ > LANGUAGE 'plpgsql';
Provide a real use-case for this need and maybe someone will consider it worthwhile to implement. In the meantime use VARIADIC or define only the longest-default signature and provide reasonable default values for all optional arguments. In this case the defaults should be zero, not one. Or don't make any of the arguments DEFAULT and provide as many overloads as you use. The whole point of DEFAULT was to avoid having to do this for simple cases - you are not compelled to use default values if your use-case is too complex for them. Or just avoid overloading and use different names that describe better what the different versions accomplish. Specifying "DEFAULT" in the function call seems to defeat the point. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Function-sugnature-with-default-parameter-tp5793737p5793739.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
