| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-15 11:06:23 |
| Message-ID: | B7D199EB-662E-43C0-80E1-F27FBBEAFDA1@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> In my mind, you just have to think about it hard enough to come to
> realize that, when viewed from the right angle, the semantic
> conflict might not exist after all. It's a bit tricky, but I think
> it's possible.
Better for users not to have to think about it, IMHO. Still, they
will, in the future, more likely be familiar with passing parameters
to functions than with the XML stuff, and so won't have to worry about
it until they use the XML stuff.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-15 12:24:21 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-12-15 10:27:07 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |