Re: C-Extenions for PostgreSQL, Call Convention Version 0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Pgsql-General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: C-Extenions for PostgreSQL, Call Convention Version 0
Date: 2008-01-03 16:27:02
Message-ID: 6539.1199377622@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Within the PostgreSQL-Documentation for 8.2,
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/xfunc-c.html, still I
> find:

> """Using call conventions version 0, we can define c_overpaid as:"""

> That sound very tutorial-like; and so $I wonder: is those version 0
> depreciated? Or ist there still value in learning it?

That's just for teaching purposes. As it says further up the page:

: We present the "old style" calling convention first although this
: approach is now deprecated, it's easier to get a handle on initially.

The examples are given in both styles so that you can get the point of
what's happening before you deal with the notational overhead of version
1. For any sort of production programming I'd definitely recommend
using version 1, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sebastián Baioni 2008-01-03 16:35:23 Re: Can't make backup
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-01-03 16:21:37 Re: Feature request: NOTIFY enhancement