Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Are these illustrating a problem with the function definition, or is it
> happening because it is the first time we are calling the same function
> with one and more than one parameter?

The function definition is broken.  While it could be fixed (by
explicitly testing fcinfo->nargs, rather than assuming positions
beyond nargs are valid) I am not willing to remove the opr_sanity
check that is complaining.  Accordingly, a better solution would be
to make two C-code wrapper functions, one for the single-parameter
and one for the two-parameter case of each function.

            regards, tom lane