Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:57:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meanwhile, we have to either revert the addition of lo_create(oid, >> bytea) altogether, or choose a different name for it. Suggestions?
> lo_new() or lo_make()? An earlier draft of the patch that added > lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().
I think we want to stick to the lo_xxx naming convention, whatever xxx ends up being.
I was idly thinking that we might want to focus on the fact that this function not only creates a LO but loads some data into it. lo_make isn't too bad, but we could also consider lo_load, lo_import, etc. (lo_import is not one of the names we have to avoid overloading. OTOH, there's already a 2-argument form of it, so maybe there'd be issues with resolving calls with unknown-literal arguments.)
I have not any problem with lo_new, lo_make. lo_import is related to import from host system. I am not sure about lo_load, but I am not able to specify arguments why not.
