AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Marko Kreen'" <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names
Date: 2000-11-15 13:42:24
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368116@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > We need the 7.0 style for compatibility with other DB's. Postgres was
> > "the" pioneer in this area, but similar functionality is now available in other DB's.
>
> Could you explain? PostgreSQL cant be compatible in C level, why
> the SQL compatibility? (I mean the LANGUAGE 'C' specifically)

C code compatible with Informix:

int32 intadd (int32 a, int32 b)
{
return a + b;
}

This is the same code that was standard in PostgreSQL 7.0

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 'Marko Kreen' 2000-11-15 14:03:26 Re: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2000-11-15 13:22:02 Re: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names