2010/2/9 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> I don't think this is right at all. > >> yes, this isn't clear. My arguments for change: > >> a) the behave depends on types - "any" is different than others. > > So what? "variadic any" is different in a lot of ways. >
implementation is different, but from users perspective there can not be differences. I am not sure. From my programmer's view is all ok. But I believe so from customer view, there can be a surprise - because NULL value doesn't skip function call. >> b) optimization over fmgr doesn't work now. >> b1. some possible const null and strict are ignored > > That's a matter of definition. > >> b2. array is non const always - so pre eval doesn't work for variadic > > You'd need to explain what you mean by that. An ARRAY[] construct is > subject to const-folding AFAICS. I am sorry. I was confused. This optimization will work. Only NULL is problem. Regards Pavel > > 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
