Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> While this is attractive, the same logic would suggest that we rename
>> pg_malloc() to palloc(), and that sounds wrong. The frontend and
>> backend functions do have different freeing semantics.
> I'd almost be inclined to go the other way and suggest that we try to
> use the pg_ prefix more, at least for things to be shared between
> front and back end code.
Meh. I think that mainly promotes carpal tunnel syndrome. The place
for a pg_ prefix is in functions we intend to expose to the "outside
world", such as functions exposed by libpq. But these are not that.
regards, tom lane