From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Memo on dropping practices |
Date: | 2002-07-13 16:53:16 |
Message-ID: | 3840.1026579196@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> The correct thing to do is to call performDeletion() with a parameter
> Should it be called performDrop rather than Deletion?
Well, if you want to rationalize the naming of these various routines:
I think DROP ought to be associated with the SQL-level commands.
performDeletion is the next level down (since it doesn't do any
permissions checks) and then there are the bottom-level deletion
routines for each object type (which do even less). It would make sense
to choose different verbs for each level. Right now, since I just split
RemoveFoo into two routines and called the second one RemoveFooById,
it's not very mnemonic at all. Perhaps:
DropFoo --- top level, corresponds to SQL DROP command
performSomething -- dependency controller
RemoveFoo --- bottom level deleter
Not sure what "performSomething" should be called, but I'd like to
think of a verb that's not either Drop or Remove. I'm not wedded to
Remove for the bottom level, either. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-13 17:03:55 | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-13 15:11:40 | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints |