Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRCxvfRv1DTJJc0EXB3ke9BXiu_7pY_o6L1RvCp4fReTtw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2014-06-12 7:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> Meanwhile, we have to either revert the addition of lo_create(oid,I think we want to stick to the lo_xxx naming convention, whatever
>> bytea) altogether, or choose a different name for it. Suggestions?
> lo_new() or lo_make()? An earlier draft of the patch that added
> lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().
xxx ends up being.
I was idly thinking that we might want to focus on the fact that this
function not only creates a LO but loads some data into it. lo_make
isn't too bad, but we could also consider lo_load, lo_import, etc.
(lo_import is not one of the names we have to avoid overloading.
OTOH, there's already a 2-argument form of it, so maybe there'd be
issues with resolving calls with unknown-literal arguments.)
I have not any problem with lo_new, lo_make. lo_import is related to import from host system. I am not sure about lo_load, but I am not able to specify arguments why not.
Pavel
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: