| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JSON Function Bike Shedding |
| Date: | 2013-02-13 05:37:57 |
| Message-ID: | 2325E3E7-9340-44E1-90ED-6C6F8622C733@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> +1 for removing that where possible. We generally have avoided such
>> names at SQL level. (The C-level function names need such prefixes to
>> be unique, but the SQL names don't.)
>>
>> In the cases where one or more arguments are anyelement, however, we may
>> need to be more specific to avoid ambiguity problems in future. I agree
>> with Josh's objections to record(), row() etc. to_record() and
>> to_recordset() might be OK.
Agreed on all counts. (Wow!)
> !
Not sure this would make a useful operator. Maybe for exists()? :-O
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-02-13 06:55:23 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-02-13 04:00:45 | Re: JSON Function Bike Shedding |