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

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I would support a single symbol to mark the entire object file. In
> fact, I would require old-style functions to add a symbol, and have
> new-style functions left alone.

That won't fly.

> There are not that many functions out there, are there? People are
> having to recompile their C files anyway for the upgrade, don't they?

There's a big difference between having to recompile and having to
change your source code.

For that matter, I think past version updates haven't even forced
recompiles of user-defined functions, at least not ones that didn't poke
into system innards. We can't get away with requiring a source code
change --- people will scream about it.

The nice thing about the info-marker idea is that we'll be able to
extend it later, so that more info about the function is stored right
where the function text is, and you don't have such a problem with
keeping an SQL script file in sync with the function's real definition.

regards, tom lane