Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)

On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 11:20:58AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't have any great love for the names 'C' and 'newC' either, but
> unless we are willing to break backward-compatibility of function
> declarations in 7.1, I think we are stuck with those names or ones
> isomorphic to them.
>
> In the long run, it seems that it'd be a good idea to embed function
> declaration info straight into a loadable module, per Philip's idea
> of a special function or your idea of a table.

Until somebody implements Philip's idea, a much simpler approach could
obviate the whole issue:

- Keep the name 'C' for both old-style and new-style module declarations.
- Require that new-style modules define a distinguished symbol, such as
"int __postgresql_call_7_1;".

The module loader can look for symbols that start with "__postgresql_call"
and adjust automatically, or report an error. This

- Breaks no backward compatibility,
- Defines a clear method for handling future changes, to prevent this
problem from arising again,
- Creates no particular inconvenience for writers of modules, and
- Might be very easy to implement.

Nathan Myers
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com