2008/7/13 Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 07:52 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> you checked second or third variant? There are two variants still.
>
> Sorry for being unclear. Those comments regarded patch v2.2.1. The bug
> is in pg_function_is_visible().
it's bug, I'll fix i
2008/7/13 Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 17:10 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> this version implements syntax based on argmodes.
>>
>>
>> CREATE FUNCTION mleast(variadic numeric[]) RETURNS numeric AS $$
>> SELECT min($1[i])
>>FROM generate_subscripts(
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 17:10 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> this version implements syntax based on argmodes.
>
>
> CREATE FUNCTION mleast(variadic numeric[]) RETURNS numeric AS $$
> SELECT min($1[i])
>FROM generate_subscripts($1,1) g(i);
> $$ LANGUAGE SQL;
>
I don't have a
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 23:06 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion about whether the variadic argument is
> declared as an array or scalar, so I am posting my comments about this
> version of the patch as well.
>
> This version also has a problem when declaring two functions "foo
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 07:52 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> you checked second or third variant? There are two variants still.
Sorry for being unclear. Those comments regarded patch v2.2.1. The bug
is in pg_function_is_visible().
Additionally, I'd like to see support for calling variadic functions
Hello
2008/7/13 Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 17:03 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> this is third variant with variadic argumen as scalar. But I still
>> strongly prefer second variant with conformance declared variadic
>> array with used array variable.
>
you checked sec
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 17:03 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> this is third variant with variadic argumen as scalar. But I still
> strongly prefer second variant with conformance declared variadic
> array with used array variable.
This version allows you to declare two functions "foo(variadic numeric)
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's an updated version of the "relation forks" patch, and an
> incremental FSM rewrite patch on top of that. The relation forks patch
> is ready for review. The FSM implementation is more work-in-progress
> still, but I'd like to get some rev
"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a WIP patch based on the discussions here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00863.php
I do not like this patch in any way, shape, or form.
(1) It's enormously overcomplicated, and therefore fragile.
(2) It achieves s
