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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
