Re: getpid() function

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Neil Conway" <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, "Karel Zak" <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: getpid() function
Date: 2002-08-02 01:13:06
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOKEHJCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus
> current_schema() -- or pg_get_viewdef() versus obj_description() ).
> Now that we have table functions, we might be using more built-in
> functions to provide information to the user -- so there will be
> an increasing need for some kind of naming convention for built-in
> functions. However, establishing a naming convention without
> breaking backwards compatibility might be tricky.

I personally think that as many functions as possible should be prefixed
pg_*... People are still used to avoiding pg_ as a prefix.

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manuel Cano Muñoz 2002-08-02 01:33:19 Re: Referential integrity doesn't work? (Thanks a lot)
Previous Message Cédric Dufour 2002-08-01 23:47:36 b1 OR b2 <-> ( CASE WHEN b1 THE true ELSE b2 END ): performance bottleneck on logical OR

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-08-02 01:37:43 Re: Module Portability
Previous Message Greg Copeland 2002-08-02 00:43:31 Re: CVS server problem!