From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: getpid() function |
Date: | 2002-08-01 15:09:52 |
Message-ID: | 20020801170951.E10347@zf.jcu.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:44:23AM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:01:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > Is there some common convention of names?
>
> No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus
I know -- for this I asked. IMHO for large project like PostgreSQL
it's important. It's not good if there is possible speculate about
name of new function. It must be unmistakable -- for this is needful
make some convension. If somebody add new function and it's released,
it's in the PostgreSQL almost forever.
> 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.
Yes, but we can try be clean for new stuff.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pgsql-gen Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com) | 2002-08-01 15:10:02 | Schedule Jobs from within Postgresql db |
Previous Message | Mirlyaz | 2002-08-01 14:55:32 | Type SET |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-08-01 15:25:47 | Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ... |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-08-01 15:04:03 | Re: Rules and Views |