From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named |
Date: | 2022-10-14 01:34:26 |
Message-ID: | 20221014013426.2cgcnb72uyolu3ax@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-10-14 10:28:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 12:48:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Maybe something like InitMaterializedSRF() w/
> > MAT_SRF_(USE_EXPECTED_DESC|BLESS)
>
> Or just SetMaterializedFuncCall()?
I think starting any function that's not a setter with Set* is very likely to
be misunderstood (SetReturning* is clearer, but long). This just reads like
you're setting the materialized function call on something.
> Do we always have to mention the SRF part of it once we tell about the
> materialization part?
Yes. The SRF is the important part.
> The latter sort implies the former once a function returns multiple tuples.
There's lot of other other things that can be materialized.
> I don't mind doing some renaming of all that even post-release, though
> comes the question of keeping some compabitility macros for
> compilation in case one uses these routines?
Agreed that we'd need compat. I think it'd need to be compatibility function,
not just renaming via macro, so we keep ABI compatibility.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-10-14 01:39:23 | Re: Incorrect comment regarding command completion tags |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-14 01:28:34 | Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named |