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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names
Date: 2000-11-10 20:26:55
Message-ID: 21363.973888015@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I don't really have a better idea, but consider if you installed 7.1 into
> /opt/postgres71: then this dump will load the old version of plpgsql.sl.

True, but absolute paths in a dump file are a different (and
long-standing) issue.

> Assuming that that would work in the first place, LANGUAGE 'C' is correct.

It wouldn't work, so that's irrelevant. The PL handlers know way more
than the average user-defined function about backend innards, and aren't
usually cross-version compatible. They won't be this time, for sure.

> Btw., could we use something other than 'newC'? It's going to get old
> really fast (pun intended). Maybe 'Cv2' or something along these lines?

Where were you six months ago? ;-( It's a bit late in the dev cycle to
be running around renaming this kind of stuff...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-11-10 21:07:20 AW: AW: Could turn on -O2 in AIX
Previous Message Nathan Myers 2000-11-10 20:01:25 Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution