> No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus > current_schema() -- or pg_get_viewdef() versus obj_description() ). > Now that we have table functions, we might be using more built-in > functions to provide information to the user -- so there will be > an increasing need for some kind of naming convention for built-in > functions. However, establishing a naming convention without > breaking backwards compatibility might be tricky.
I personally think that as many functions as possible should be prefixed pg_*... People are still used to avoiding pg_ as a prefix. Chris ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
