From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named |
Date: | 2022-10-16 20:22:41 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_b+1c=2JZo0vNR7UBOCYegt8V7HeNGoiQ6TfyQunKOexQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 7:41 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 05:09:46PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > To summarize, I am in support of renaming SetSingleFuncCall() ->
> > InitMaterializedSRF() and SRF_SINGLE_USE_EXPECTED ->
> > MAT_SRF_USE_EXPECTED_TUPLE_DESC (or just DESC) as suggested elsewhere in
> > this thread. And I think we should eventually consider renaming the
> > multi* function names and consider if ExprSingleResult is a good name.
>
> As already mentioned, these have been around for years, so the impact
> would be bigger.
That makes sense.
> Attached is a patch for HEAD and REL_15_STABLE to
> switch this stuff with new names, with what's needed for ABI
> compatibility. My plan would be to keep the compatibility parts only
> in 15, and drop them from HEAD.
>
- * SetSingleFuncCall
+ * Compatibility function for v15.
+ */
+void
+SetSingleFuncCall(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, bits32 flags)
+{
+ InitMaterializedSRF(fcinfo, flags);
+}
+
Any reason not to use a macro?
- Melanie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-10-16 20:45:24 | Re: macos ventura SDK spews warnings |
Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2022-10-16 20:17:37 | Re: PATCH: Using BRIN indexes for sorted output |