|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-May-10, Andres Freund wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that this is more churn than I think is useful to
>> tackle after feature freeze, with not sufficient benefits. If others
>> chime in, voting to do this, I'm OK with doing that, but otherwise I
>> think there's more important stuff to do.
> One issue is that if we don't change things now, we can never change it
> afterwards, so we should make some effort to ensure that naming is
> sensible. And we already changed the names of the whole interface.
Yeah. I do not have an opinion on whether these changes are actually
improvements, but renaming right now is way less painful than it would
be to rename post-v12. Let's try to get it right the first time,
especially with functions we already renamed in this cycle.
I do think that the "too much churn" argument has merit for places
that were *not* already changed in v12. In particular I'd vote against
renaming the systable_xxx functions.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2019-05-10 20:29:18||Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2019-05-10 20:26:47||Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names|