Re: writing new regexp functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: writing new regexp functions
Date
Msg-id 1875.1170376899@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to writing new regexp functions  (Jeremy Drake <pgsql@jdrake.com>)
Responses Re: writing new regexp functions  (Jeremy Drake <pgsql@jdrake.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jeremy Drake <pgsql@jdrake.com> writes:
> Is there some specific reason that these functions are static,

Yeah: not cluttering the global namespace.  I'm not excited about
exporting everything that anybody could possibly want access to;
that just makes it harder to maintain the code.  When you see a
static function, you know that you don't have to look further than
the current file to understand how it's used.  When you see a global
function, the difficulty of knowing how it's used is an order of
magnitude higher, maybe more.  What's more, if you want to change it
then you have to worry about the possible side-effects on unknown
non-core code that might be calling it.

Is there a reason for not putting your new code itself into regexp.c?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: Bitmap index thoughts
Next
From: Koichi Suzuki
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Full page writes improvement