Re: bool: symbol name collision

Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:42, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I guess the question that comes to mind for me is how many other
>> things fall into this category. We define a lot of symbols like int4
>> and int32 that other people could also have defined, and I don't
>> really want to s/^/pg/ all of them. If it's really only a question of
>> renaming bool I could see doing it.

> You mean i'd get the pleasure of 'fixing' all my 3rd party C modules?

Yeah, it's the implications for 3rd-party modules that make me not want
to do this. A search & replace on our own code base is one thing, but
when it's positively guaranteed to hit most add-on modules as well,
you need to show a pretty strong benefit from it. I think the argument
for changing this is too thin to support that.

regards, tom lane