Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names

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