Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)
Date: 2000-11-17 01:06:30
Message-ID: 10818.974423190@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Myers <ncm(at)zembu(dot)com> writes:
> - Keep the name 'C' for both old-style and new-style module declarations.
> - Require that new-style modules define a distinguished symbol, such as
> "int __postgresql_call_7_1;".

I was thinking along the same lines myself. I'd want to do it on a
per-function basis, though, rather than assuming that all functions in
a module must use the same interface.

I'd be inclined to define a macro that creates the signal object,
so that you'd write something like

PG_FUNCTION_API_V2(foo);

Datum
foo(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
...
}

to create a dynamically loadable new-style function.

Comments?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2000-11-17 01:52:45 Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-17 00:56:21 Re: Varchar standard compliance