| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: jsonpath string methods: lower, upper, initcap, l/r/btrim, replace, split_part |
| Date: | 2025-05-14 03:00:34 |
| Message-ID: | F4AB5396-ACCA-4358-969E-6708C7F6A95A@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 13, 2025, at 16:24, Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As Robert said—and I agree—renaming the existing _tz family would be more trouble than it’s worth, given the need for deprecations, migration paths, etc. If we were designing this today, suffixes like _stable or _volatile might have been more appropriate, but at this point, we’re better off staying consistent with the _tz family.
I get the pragmatism, and don’t want to over-bike-shed, but what a wart to live with. [I just went back and re-read Robert’s post, and didn’t realize he used exactly the same expression!] Would it really be too effortful to create _stable or _volatile functions and leave the _tz functions as a sort of legacy?
Or maybe there’s a nice backronym we could come up with for _tz.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-05-14 03:45:53 | Re: Backward movement of confirmed_flush resulting in data duplication. |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2025-05-14 02:13:56 | Re: Memoize ANTI and SEMI JOIN inner |