Horton

Re: pg_execute_from_file review

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-11-29T16:21:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 11/29/2010 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, but I think "query" is also a noise word here.
>> Why not just "pg_execute_file" and "pg_execute_string"?

> Well, I put that in to make it clear that the file/string is expected to 
> contain SQL and not, say, machine code. But I agree we could possibly do 
> without it.

Well, if you want to make that clear, it should be "pg_execute_sql_file"
etc.  I still think "query" is pretty vague, if not actually
counterproductive (because it's singular not plural, so someone might
think the file can only contain one query).

			regards, tom lane