| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions |
| Date: | 2019-07-15 23:16:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGK_pJ4iERx7Ve5Cor-qGSOf7iCYaSWMLZr_16=PBiFkpQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:08 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> The compromise I can offer is to change the name of the first one, say to
> "pg_scanint8" to reflect its former backend name. Attached a v4 which does
> a renaming so as to avoid the name similarity but signature difference. I
> also made both error messages identical.
Cool. I'm not exactly sure when we should include 'pg_' in identifier
names. It seems to be used for functions/macros that wrap or replace
something else with a similar name, like pg_pwrite(),
pg_attribute_noreturn(), ... In this case it's just our own code that
we're moving, so I'm wondering if we should just call it scanint8().
If you agree, I think this is ready to commit.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-07-15 23:39:20 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-07-15 23:16:08 | Removing unneeded downlink field from nbtree stack struct |