On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 01:57 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> Note that I'm talking here about the names of the C functions, not
> the SQL names.
> The existing hstore has some very dubious choices of function names
> (for non-static functions) in the C code; functions like each(),
> delete(), fetchval(), defined(), tconvert(), etc. which all look to me
> like prime candidates for name collisions and consequent hilarity.
> The patch I'm working on could include fixes for this; but there's an
> obvious impact on anyone upgrading from an earlier version... is it
> worth it?
Perhaps you can have two sets of functions, yet just one .so? One with
the old naming for compatibility, and a set of dehilarified function
names for future use. Two .sql files, giving the user choice.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Gierth||Date: 2009-03-21 12:25:21|
|Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-03-21 05:44:00|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4721: All sub-tables incorrectly included in search plan for partitioned table |