On 2019-Sep-11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:46 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:29:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Good thought, but I think even if we want to change the name of
> > > tuple_data_split, it might be better done separately.
> >
> > Yes, that's not the problem of this patch. Not sure if it actually
> > makes sense either to change it.
>
> Hmm it will be more consistent with other functions but I think we
> would need to increase the pageinspect version to 1.8 and need the new
> sql file to rename the function name. And it will be for PG12, not
> PG13. If we have to do it someday I think it's better to do it in PG12
> that the table AM has been introduced to. Anyway I've attached
> separate patch for it.
I'd rather not change the name of the existing function ... that
function is pretty old (it was introduced in 9.6, commit d6061f83a166).
I think we can regard that name as an historical accident, and use a
modern name convention for the new function (and any hypothetical future
ones) that will, sadly, collide with the historical name for the old
function.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services