Noah Misch <n...@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.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
