On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurj...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> My vote is - when there's an overloaded function, put each version in >>> its own file. And name the files something like >>> functionname_something.sql. And just document that something may not >>> be entirely stable. >> >> >> I would agree that's better if the dump order isn't deterministic. >> >> However, it looks like an easy fix to make the dump order deterministic: >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-07/msg00232.php >> >> If the dump order is deterministic, I think its cleaner to put all >> versions in the same file. >> >> Benefits: >> + Pretty looking filename >> + Same file structure for all object types, no special exception for >> functions >> > > I think there's a merit to keeping all overloaded variations of a function > in a single file, apart from the simplicity and benefits noted above. A > change in one variation of the function may also be applicable to other > variations, say in bug-fixes or enhancements. So keeping all variations in > one file would make sense, since it is logically one object. > No they are not necessarily one logical unit. You could have a bunch of functions called, say, "equal" which have pretty much nothing to do with each other, since they refer to different types. +1 from me for putting one function definition per file. cheers andrew
