On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Kevin Brown wrote: > Joe Conway wrote: > > Jason Earl wrote: > > >>Actually, I think it was someone else (Joe???) that is doing the leg > > >>work, and he was the one choosing explode / implode and getting > > >>gruff for it, so I was just stepping in and defending his decision. > > > > > >Oops, my bad. My brain must already think that it is the weekend. My > > >reasoning still stands, though. Whoever writes the code gets to pick > > >the names (assuming, of course, that they can get them past the rest > > >of the PostgreSQL hackers). > > > > <dons flame proof suit> > > Yup, that was me. I was watching from the sidelines ;-) > > > > I'll get on with coding and try to consider all of the input when it > > comes to picking the names. In the end, it will depend on whatever the > > guys with commit access will live with, so I'm not going to worry about > > it too much. > > </dons flame proof suit> > > My 2 cents: > > Use "split" and "merge". Avoids the "join" issue and avoids the > "implode/explode" issue too. :-)
Isn't merge a new SQL keyword in SQL99 or SQL03? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
