Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at>:
>> There are a lot of small changes to pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c, are they all
>> necessary? For example, why was copy_plpgsql_datum renamed to
>> plpgsql_copy_datum?
> yes, it's necessary - a implementation is in new file and there is
> necessary call a functions from pg_compile and pg_exec files -
> checking is between compilation and execution - so some functions
> should not be static now. All plpgsql public functions should start
> with plpgsql_ prefix. It is reason for renaming.
I don't think renaming is necessary. plpgsql is a standalone shared
library and so its symbols don't matter to anybody but itself.
Possibly a larger question, though, is whether you really need a new
source file. If that results in having to export functions that
otherwise could stay static, maybe it's not the best choice.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
