Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachabilityattributes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachabilityattributes
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0204130222420.847-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachabilityattributes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachabilityattributes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> case 1: "immutable"
> >> case 2: "mutable", or perhaps "stable"
> >> case 3: "volatile"
>
> > Since they've changed anyway, how about dropping the silly "is" in front
> > of the names?
>
> "volatile" would conflict with a C keyword.  Possibly we could get away
> with this at the SQL level, but I was worried...

In general, I was thinking about migrating the CREATE FUNCTION syntax more
into consistency with other commmands and with the SQL standard.
Basically I'd like to write
   CREATE FUNCTION name (args, ...) RETURNS type     AS '...'     LANGUAGE foo     STATIC     IMPLICIT CAST

(where everything after RETURNS can be in random order).

OK, so the key words are not the same as SQL, but it looks a lot
friendlier this way.  We're already migrating CREATE DATABASE, I think,
and the names of the options have changed, too, so this might be a good
time.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate
Next
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.3 schedule