Re: splitting plpython into smaller parts
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-15T15:30:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue dic 15 12:00:13 -0300 2011: >> How to people feel about naming the files (as proposed) >> >> ! OBJS = plpython.o plpython_io.o plpython_procedure.o plpython_exec.o \ >> ! plpython_plpy.o plpython_spi.o plpython_result.o plpython_cursor.o \ >> ! plpython_plan.o plpython_subtransaction.o plpython_functions.o \ >> ! plpython_elog.o >> >> vs. say >> >> ! OBJS = main.o io.o procedure.o exec.o plpy.o spi.o result.o cursor.o \ >> ! plan.o subtransaction.o functions.o elog.o >> >> ? > I find the extra prefix unnecessary and ugly; if we had to had a > prefix, I'd choose a shorter one (maybe "py" instead of "plpython_"). +1 for a prefix, mainly because the shorter names duplicate some names already in use elsewhere in our tree. But I agree with Alvaro that "py" would be sufficient. regards, tom lane