> > [ responding to both of Jan's messages in one ]
> > wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > > I like the current interface for it's simpleness from the user
> > > function developers point of view.
> > There is that; even with a good set of convenience macros there will be
> > more to learn about writing user functions. OTOH, the way it is now
> > is not exactly transparent --- in particular, NULL handling is so easy
> > to forget about/get wrong. We can make that much easier. We can also
> > simplify the interface noticeably for standard types like float4/float8.
> > BTW: I am not in nearly as big a hurry as Bruce is to rip out support
> > for the current user-function interface. I want to get rid of old-style
> > builtin functions before 7.0 because of the portability issue (see
> > below). But if a particular user is using old-style user functions
> > and isn't having portability problems on his machine, there's no need
> > to force him to convert, it seems to me.
> Personally, I could live with dropping the entire old
> interface. That's not the problem. But at least Bruce and his
> book need to know the final programming conventions if we
> ought to change it at all, so it can be covered in his
> manuscript when it is sent down to the paper.
No. My coverage of that is going to be more conceptual than actual
programming. Do whatever you think is best.
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-10-26 16:51:11|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Error: shmget failed|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-10-26 16:46:54|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)|