On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:06:41 PM CET Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
> > > 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
> >
> > That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we're giving
> > Ruby (and potentially every other library on the planet) veto power over
> > our function namespace. That does not scale, especially not when the
> > feedback loop has a time constant measured in years :-(
> >
> > I don't have a huge objection to renaming the rbtree functions, other
> > than the precedent it sets ...
>
> Maybe prefixing with pg_ would better than rb_ to rbt_. That's our
> semi-standard namespace prefix, I think. Of course nothing keeps
> somebody else from using it, too, but we can hope that they won't.
> It's certainly not very surprising that Ruby has symbols starting with
> rb_...
I now realized that there's rb_block_call() alternative for rb_iterate()
Ruby call -- which fortunately doesn't collide with PostgreSQL internals.
It means that for sufficiently new Ruby there exists some solution (not
that something similar can not re-appear elsewhere).
Pavel