Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq
Date: 2014-06-12 15:11:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYau4CanvQASjR3WZkDvNRpfQ0B=CM4BrcHs_s=_FMZ7Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
>> >> lo_new() or lo_make()? An earlier draft of the patch that added
>> >> lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().
>>
>> It appears that lo_make() has a small plurality, but before we lock
>> that name in, there was one other idea that occurred to me: the
>> underlying C function is currently named lo_create_bytea(), and
>> that seems like not an awful choice for the SQL name either.
>>
>> Any other votes out there?
>
> I was also going to suggest lo_create_bytea().

That sounds good to me, too.

Presumably we should also fix libpq to not be so dumb. I mean, it
doesn't help with the immediate problem, since as you say there could
be non-upgraded copies of libpq out there for the indefinite future,
but it still seems like something we oughta fix.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-12 15:13:48 Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-06-12 15:08:35 Re: Shared memory changes in 9.4?