| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Date: | 2010-11-29 16:19:17 |
| Message-ID: | 4CF3D285.8010801@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/29/2010 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I'm not sure why you need either "from". It just seems like a noise
>> word. Maybe we could use pg_execute_query_file() and
>> pg_execute_query_string(), which would be fairly clear and nicely
>> symmetrical.
> +1, but I think "query" is also a noise word here.
> Why not just "pg_execute_file" and "pg_execute_string"?
>
>
Well, I put that in to make it clear that the file/string is expected to
contain SQL and not, say, machine code. But I agree we could possibly do
without it.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-29 16:21:32 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Previous Message | Joshua Tolley | 2010-11-29 16:18:13 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |