From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) |
Date: | 2000-11-16 17:05:44 |
Message-ID: | 200011161705.MAA15807@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> > This mostly like the current "CREATE FUNCTION .. LANGUAGE 'C'".
> > Main difference is that the TYPE=0 means the old 'C' interface
> > and TYPE=1 means 'newC' interface. Default is 1.
>
> This improves matters how, exactly? As far as I can see, this just
> replaces a readable construct with magic numbers, for a net loss in
> readability and no change in functionality.
>
> I don't have any great love for the names 'C' and 'newC' either, but
> unless we are willing to break backward-compatibility of function
> declarations in 7.1, I think we are stuck with those names or ones
> isomorphic to them.
I am recommending C70 for old functions, and C for current-style
functions. That way, we can implement C71 if we want for backward
compatibility. I think making everyone use newC for the current style
is going to be confusing.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-11-16 17:06:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: DBD::Pg installation seems to fail with 7.1 libs |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-16 17:03:39 | Re: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh |