Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)

> >
> > [ responding to both of Jan's messages in one ]
> >
> > wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > >     I like the current interface for it's simpleness from the  user
> > >     function   developers  point  of  view.
> >
> > There is that; even with a good set of convenience macros there will be
> > more to learn about writing user functions.  OTOH, the way it is now
> > is not exactly transparent --- in particular, NULL handling is so easy
> > to forget about/get wrong.  We can make that much easier.  We can also
> > simplify the interface noticeably for standard types like float4/float8.
> >
> > BTW: I am not in nearly as big a hurry as Bruce is to rip out support
> > for the current user-function interface.  I want to get rid of old-style
> > builtin functions before 7.0 because of the portability issue (see
> > below).  But if a particular user is using old-style user functions
> > and isn't having portability problems on his machine, there's no need
> > to force him to convert, it seems to me.
> 
>     Personally,  I  could  live  with  dropping  the  entire  old
>     interface. That's not the problem. But at least Bruce and his
>     book  need  to  know  the final programming conventions if we
>     ought to change it at all,  so  it  can  be  covered  in  his
>     manuscript when it is sent down to the paper.

No.  My coverage of that is going to be more conceptual than actual
programming.  Do whatever you think is best.



--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026