Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> Note that I'm talking here about the names of the C functions, not
> the SQL names.
> The existing hstore has some very dubious choices of function names
> (for non-static functions) in the C code; functions like each(),
> delete(), fetchval(), defined(), tconvert(), etc. which all look to me
> like prime candidates for name collisions and consequent hilarity.
> The patch I'm working on could include fixes for this; but there's an
> obvious impact on anyone upgrading from an earlier version... is it
> worth it?
I agree that this wasn't an amazingly good choice, but I think there's
no real risk of name collisions because fmgr only searches for such names
within the particular .so. As you say, renaming *will* break existing
dumps. I'd be inclined to leave it alone, at least for now. I hope
that someone will step up and implement a decent module system for us
sometime soon, which might fix the upgrade problem for changes of this
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-03-21 05:44:00|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4721: All sub-tables incorrectly included in search plan for partitioned table |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-03-21 03:59:35|
|Subject: Re: small but useful patches for text search|