| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Date: | 2010-11-29 16:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | 26595.1291047692@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 11/29/2010 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, but I think "query" is also a noise word here.
>> Why not just "pg_execute_file" and "pg_execute_string"?
> Well, I put that in to make it clear that the file/string is expected to
> contain SQL and not, say, machine code. But I agree we could possibly do
> without it.
Well, if you want to make that clear, it should be "pg_execute_sql_file"
etc. I still think "query" is pretty vague, if not actually
counterproductive (because it's singular not plural, so someone might
think the file can only contain one query).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-29 16:41:02 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-29 16:19:17 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |