On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> That's utter nonsense. Why wouldn't people expect concat(), for >>> example, to work for large (or even just moderate-sized) arrays? > >> /me blinks. > >> What does that have to do with anything? IIUC, the question isn't >> whether CONCAT() would work for large arrays, but rather for very >> large numbers of arrays written out as CONCAT(a1, ..., a10000000). > > No, the question is what happens with CONCAT(VARIADIC some-array-here), > which currently just returns the array as-is, but which really ought > to concat all the array elements as if they'd been separate arguments.
Wow, that's pretty surprising behavior. > Pavel is claiming it's okay for that to fall over if the array has > more than 100 elements. I disagree, not only for the specific case of > CONCAT(), but with the more general implication that such a limitation > is going to be okay for any VARIADIC ANY function that anyone will ever > write. I don't know - how many of those will there really ever be? I mean, people only write functions as VARIADIC as a notational convenience, don't they? If you actually need to pass more than 100 separate pieces of data to a function, sending over 100+ parameters is almost certainly the Wrong Way To Do It. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
