On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
>> >> lo_new() or lo_make()? An earlier draft of the patch that added
>> >> lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().
>>
>> It appears that lo_make() has a small plurality, but before we lock
>> that name in, there was one other idea that occurred to me: the
>> underlying C function is currently named lo_create_bytea(), and
>> that seems like not an awful choice for the SQL name either.
>>
>> Any other votes out there?
>
> I was also going to suggest lo_create_bytea().
That sounds good to me, too.
Presumably we should also fix libpq to not be so dumb. I mean, it
doesn't help with the immediate problem, since as you say there could
be non-upgraded copies of libpq out there for the indefinite future,
but it still seems like something we oughta fix.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
