From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5 |
Date: | 2009-10-06 16:27:46 |
Message-ID: | 4ACB7002.5030505@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:34:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:57:39AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>>>> The names won’t enable inter-function calling
>>> Inter-function calling could be handy, too.
>> I agree. This would mean that the function name mangling would have to
>> be more predictable ... maybe using the argument types instead of OID?
>
> As Andrew Dunstan pointed out off-list, the argument type naming
> scheme is quite vulnerable to naming oddities:
>
> foo(int,text,int)
> foo_int(text,int)
> foo_int_text(int)
> foo_int_text_int()
Are we looking down the wrong end of the telescope here? What if we had
something more like the "C" binding for functions:
CREATE FUNCTION foo(int,text,int) AS 'MyModule::internal_foo' LANGUAGE
plperl;
If you want inter-function calls you use internal_foo.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-06 16:46:43 | Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1 |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-10-06 16:18:22 | Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5 |