| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Philip Warner'" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language nam esh |
| Date: | 2000-11-16 17:51:15 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368120@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> But we have very few Informix functions moving to PostgreSQL.
I do not understand this comment.
What you imho forget here is that a definition for an interface will eventually be
included in the SQL standard.
And it will be what Oracle or DB/2 (maybe even Informix) does.
I conclude from previous mails, that none of us have the slightest idea
how this works in DB/2 or Oracle. This is imho bad.
> My concern is that this is confusing. All our documentation says the
> style is called C. Functions are confusing enough. Adding a new name
> for our default function type could add to the confusion.
Yes, that is why imho some more research and adjustments are necessary
before we make this the new default interface, and postpone public advertisement
to 7.2.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-11-16 17:58:53 | Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c) |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-11-16 17:33:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PHPBuilder article -- Postgres vs MySQL |