Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 10/03/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I like the new-header-file idea because it will result in minimal code > > churn and thus minimal back-patching hazards. > > > > I do *not* like "PG_PM". For our own purposes that adds no uniqueness > > at all. If we're to touch these symbols then I'd go for names like > > "DATETIME_PM". Or maybe "DT_PM" ... there's a little bit of precedent > > for the DT_ prefix already. > > Yeah. If we use a prefix +1 for DT_. If we do that then I think they > should *all* be prefixed, not just the ones we know of conflicts for. Maybe it'd be good idea to unify some of that stuff so that ecpg can use it, too? Having a second copy of the same stuff in src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt.h is pretty terrible. Even if not, let's make sure they don't diverge. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
