2014-06-12 7:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> 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.)
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.


>                         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

Reply via email to