Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Date: 2009-03-21 09:13:39
Message-ID: 1237626819.3953.550.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew GierthDate: 2009-03-21 12:25:21
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-03-21 05:44:00
Subject: Re: BUG #4721: All sub-tables incorrectly included in search plan for partitioned table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group