| From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Date: | 2010-11-29 16:18:13 |
| Message-ID: | 4cf3d25d.13f88e0a.40ca.644b@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:12:58AM -0500, 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"?
>
> regards, tom lane
While we're bikeshedding, and since I started the thread that has become this
topic, +1 for Tom's naming.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-29 16:19:17 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-29 16:15:41 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |