| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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 13:32:42 |
| Message-ID: | C569B64F-1D6F-4966-83A1-CD5DC4ECBAD1@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Reykja | 2012-07-05 13:56:27 | Re: Schema version management |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-07-05 13:21:04 | Re: Schema version management |