Re: pg_execute_from_file review

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 11/29/2010 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, but I think "query" is also a noise word here.
>> Why not just "pg_execute_file" and "pg_execute_string"?

> Well, I put that in to make it clear that the file/string is expected to 
> contain SQL and not, say, machine code. But I agree we could possibly do 
> without it.

Well, if you want to make that clear, it should be "pg_execute_sql_file"
etc.  I still think "query" is pretty vague, if not actually
counterproductive (because it's singular not plural, so someone might
think the file can only contain one query).
        regards, tom lane