Re: Schema version management
| От | Vik Reykja |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Schema version management |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CALDgxVviFCHfAzfB4wyynVBdcogOg8nW8fsdYThsiQY8wC9AWA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Schema version management (Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Schema version management
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> wrote:
I'll go against the flow here. I would prefer to have all overloaded functions in the same file.
+1. It might make sense to include some sort of argument type information. The function signature is
On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:21, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> No they are not necessarily one logical unit. You could have a bunch of
> functions called, say, "equal" which have pretty much nothing to do with
> each other, since they refer to different types.
>
> +1 from me for putting one function definition per file.
really its identifier. The function name is only part of it.
I'll go against the flow here. I would prefer to have all overloaded functions in the same file.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: