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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)
Date: 2000-11-16 17:05:44
Message-ID: 200011161705.MAA15807@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> > This mostly like the current "CREATE FUNCTION .. LANGUAGE 'C'".
> > Main difference is that the TYPE=0 means the old 'C' interface
> > and TYPE=1 means 'newC' interface. Default is 1.
>
> This improves matters how, exactly? As far as I can see, this just
> replaces a readable construct with magic numbers, for a net loss in
> readability and no change in functionality.
>
> 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.

I am recommending C70 for old functions, and C for current-style
functions. That way, we can implement C71 if we want for backward
compatibility. I think making everyone use newC for the current style
is going to be confusing.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-11-16 17:06:10 Re: [HACKERS] Re: DBD::Pg installation seems to fail with 7.1 libs
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-11-16 17:03:39 Re: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh