AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language nam esh - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Subject AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language nam esh
Date
Msg-id 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368120@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language nam esh  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> But we have very few Informix functions moving to PostgreSQL.

I do not understand this comment.
What you imho forget here is that a definition for an interface will eventually be
included in the SQL standard. 
And it will be what Oracle or DB/2 (maybe even Informix) does.

I conclude from previous mails, that none of us have the slightest idea
how this works in DB/2 or Oracle. This is imho bad.

> My concern is that this is confusing. All our documentation says the
> style is called C.  Functions are confusing enough.  Adding a new name
> for our default function type could add to the confusion.

Yes, that is why imho some more research and adjustments are necessary 
before we make this the new default interface, and postpone public advertisement 
to 7.2.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alfred Perlstein
Date:
Subject: Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language nam esh