Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I like the new-header-file idea because it will result in minimal code
> > churn and thus minimal back-patching hazards.
> >
> > I do *not* like "PG_PM". For our own purposes that adds no uniqueness
> > at all. If we're to touch these symbols then I'd go for names like
> > "DATETIME_PM". Or maybe "DT_PM" ... there's a little bit of precedent
> > for the DT_ prefix already.
>
> Yeah. If we use a prefix +1 for DT_. If we do that then I think they
> should *all* be prefixed, not just the ones we know of conflicts for.
Maybe it'd be good idea to unify some of that stuff so that ecpg can use
it, too? Having a second copy of the same stuff in
src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt.h is pretty terrible. Even if not,
let's make sure they don't diverge.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers