Re: Proposal: generate_iterator functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: generate_iterator functions
Date: 2007-10-18 13:56:38
Message-ID: 22538.1192715798@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> There was a very similar proposal a little while back (google:
> array_to_set). I think I like those names better since you are
> returning a set, not an iterator :-).

I agree, this is a very poor choice of name. There should be some
reference to arrays in it, for one thing.

generate_array_subscripts() maybe?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Decibel! 2007-10-18 14:09:19 dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-10-18 13:52:23 Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled