Added to TODO:
* Consistently name server-side internal functions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:44:23AM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:01:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > > Is there some common convention of names?
> >
> > No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus
>
> I know -- for this I asked. IMHO for large project like PostgreSQL
> it's important. It's not good if there is possible speculate about
> name of new function. It must be unmistakable -- for this is needful
> make some convension. If somebody add new function and it's released,
> it's in the PostgreSQL almost forever.
>
> > current_schema() -- or pg_get_viewdef() versus obj_description() ).
> > Now that we have table functions, we might be using more built-in
> > functions to provide information to the user -- so there will be
> > an increasing need for some kind of naming convention for built-in
> > functions. However, establishing a naming convention without
> > breaking backwards compatibility might be tricky.
>
> Yes, but we can try be clean for new stuff.
>
> Karel
>
> --
> Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
> http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
>
> C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@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
