
> > because as said, it can be any other language besides C and also
> > the 'AS file' is weird.
> 
> This is interesting.  It allows us to control the default behavour of
> "C". I would vote to default to 7.0-style when no version is used for
> 7.1, then default to 7.1 style in 7.2 and later.  We don't need
> backward C function compatibility for more than one release, I think.

We need the 7.0 style for compatibility with other DB's. Postgres was 
"the" pioneer in this area, but similar functionality is now available in other DB's.

I think it would be worthwhile, to at least peek at what Informix and DB/2
does here.

Andreas

Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:58:30 +0100
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:58:30AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> 
> > > because as said, it can be any other language besides C and also
> > > the 'AS file' is weird.
> > 
> > This is interesting.  It allows us to control the default behavour of
> > "C". I would vote to default to 7.0-style when no version is used for
> > 7.1, then default to 7.1 style in 7.2 and later.  We don't need
> > backward C function compatibility for more than one release, I think.
> 
> We need the 7.0 style for compatibility with other DB's. Postgres was 
> "the" pioneer in this area, but similar functionality is now available in other DB's.

Could you explain?  PostgreSQL cant be compatible in C level, why
the SQL compatibility?  (I mean the LANGUAGE 'C' specifically)

I see already three different C interfaces:

1) 7.0.x
2) 7.1.x
3) > 7.1 where is possible to give a generic funtion/struct where
   the backend can guess the actual params, also with some
   docstrings, etc...  Per-function interface needs not to change.

How do you see it possible to solve with current LANGUAGE 'fooC'
approach?


-- 
marko


Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:22:02 +0200
Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee>
Re: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names