Re: Another issue in default-values patch: defaults expanded too soon

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another issue in default-values patch: defaults expanded too soon
Date: 2008-12-18 10:14:20
Message-ID: 494A227C.203@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark wrote:
> Well honestly I don't see a terribly compelling use case for default arguments
> altogether. Obviously they're just a programmer convenience and don't really
> let anyone do anything they couldn't do without them.

The real payoff comes with name-based paramter lists (the name => value
busines) and allowing defaults anywhere in the parameter list (not just
at the end). This is required to port many PL/SQL-using applications,
and you can't write it any other way.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-12-18 10:17:42 Re: uuids on freebsd
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-12-18 10:04:46 Re: Function with defval returns error