Re: [PATCH] Rename "getdatabaseencoding()" to "pg_database_encoding()", and document

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026, 06:05 Ian Lawrence Barwick, <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 2026年7月17日(金) 23:29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> >
> > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> > >> On 17 Jul 2026, at 08:44, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >> It was noted here [1] that we have the undocumented SQL function
> > >> "getdatabaseencoding()", used mainly in regression tests and a couple
> > >> of psql queries. While considering a documentation patch, it occurred
> > >> to me that it's a horrible function name which doesn't look like other
> > >> public functions, and we already have "pg_client_encoding()", so why
> not
> > >> rename it to match that while we're at it?
> >
> > > This function seems to be referred to in extensions, how about adding
> keeping
> > > the existin name and adding the new name as an alias? It would keep
> existing
> > > code from breaking and cause less churn in the code.
> >
> > Yeah, the odds that we would remove the old name (without a multi-year
> > deprecation period) are zero, full stop.
> >
> > However, I can't really get excited about this proposal in the first
> > place. There are plenty of ugly and inconsistent names in Postgres,
> > and an enormous amount of more-valuable work to do.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Here's a patch to at least document it, in the table "Other String
> Functions and Operators"
> (as "pg_client_encoding()" is already there).
>

I would go in the opposite direction; announce its deprecation, and mention
the alternative in the release notes. Surely we don't want to make it more
difficult to get rid of?

Thom

>