Re: Better name for PQsslAttributes()

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 11/06/2015 11:31 PM, Lars Kanis wrote:
>> As a co-maintainer of the PostgreSQL adapter for Ruby, I would like to
>> bridge the new SSL related functions to Ruby methods. However I wonder
>> whether PQsslAttributes() is the best name for the function. Based on
>> this name, I would expect to get key+value pairs instead of only the
>> keys. IMHO PQsslAttributeNames() would express better, what the function
>> does.

> Hmm, I think you're right.

> The question is, do we want to still change it? It's a new function in
> 9.5, and we're just about to enter beta, so I guess we could, although
> there might already be applications out there using it. If we do want to
> rename it, now is the last chance to do it.

> Thoughts? I'm leaning towards changing it now.

I agree that this is about the last possible chance to rename it, if
indeed that chance is not already past.

However, it seems somewhat unlikely that anyone would be depending on the
thing already, so I think probably we could get away with renaming it.

+0.5 or so to changing it. But if we do, it has to happen before Monday.

regards, tom lane