On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> 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.
I agree that a naming convention would be useful in some circumstances,
but for commonly-used functions, I think it would do more harm than
good. 'pg_nextval()' is awfully ugly, for example.
And if we're going to have a naming convention for builtin functions,
what about builtin types? 'pg_int4', anyone? :-)
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
