Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6009.1563284465@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 16, 2019, at 3:30 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>> Cool. I'm not exactly sure when we should include 'pg_' in identifier >>> names. >> I added the pg_ prefix as a poor man's namespace because the function can be used by external tools (eg contribs), soas to avoid potential name conflicts. > Yeah, I think if we are going to expose it to front end code there is a good argument for some kind of prefix that makesit sound PostgreSQL-related. Yeah, I'd tend to err in favor of including "pg_". We might get away without that as long as the name is never exposed to non-PG code, but for stuff that's going into src/common/ or src/port/ I think that's a risky assumption to make. I'm also in agreement with Michael's comments in <20190716071144.GF1439@paquier.xyz> that this would be a good time to bring some consistency to the naming of related functions. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: