| From: | Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Schema version management |
| Date: | 2012-07-05 13:56:27 |
| Message-ID: | CALDgxVviFCHfAzfB4wyynVBdcogOg8nW8fsdYThsiQY8wC9AWA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> +1. It might make sense to include some sort of argument type information.
> The function signature is
> 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2012-07-05 14:35:52 | Re: Schema version management |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2012-07-05 13:32:42 | Re: Schema version management |