| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | 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: | 2002-08-01 19:09:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20020801190925.GB6119@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> 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.
I agree that a naming convention would be useful in some circumstances,
but for commonly-used functions, I think it would do more harm than
good. 'pg_nextval()' is awfully ugly, for example.
And if we're going to have a naming convention for builtin functions,
what about builtin types? 'pg_int4', anyone? :-)
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergio A. Kessler | 2002-08-01 19:09:42 | Re: Windows FrontEnd for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Jim Mercer | 2002-08-01 19:07:32 | matrix query? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-08-01 19:09:26 | Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items ) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-01 18:59:40 | Re: Rules and Views |