On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes:
>> >> lo_new() or lo_make()?  An earlier draft of the patch that added
>> >> lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().
>> It appears that lo_make() has a small plurality, but before we lock
>> that name in, there was one other idea that occurred to me: the
>> underlying C function is currently named lo_create_bytea(), and
>> that seems like not an awful choice for the SQL name either.
>> Any other votes out there?
> I was also going to suggest lo_create_bytea().

That sounds good to me, too.

Presumably we should also fix libpq to not be so dumb.  I mean, it
doesn't help with the immediate problem, since as you say there could
be non-upgraded copies of libpq out there for the indefinite future,
but it still seems like something we oughta fix.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to