On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 15:27, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> I see your answer as "no, not really any reason, but also not worth >> changing", which is fine by me :-) > > Yeah, that's a fair summary. If it had been coded the other way > to start with, I'd also say it wasn't worth changing, at least > not until such time as we actually needed to. > > In the meantime, any added functions of the same ilk should definitely > be made to look like the existing ones.
Yeah. I notice there are some functions that are not following this pattern, but most are, so I'll adjust my patch with this. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
