Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with
>> backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em).
>> Do people want to re-vote, understanding that those are the remaining
>> choices?
> I prefer (3c) put them in an extension and let people that need 'em
> install 'em, but not have them available by default.
As far as the core code is concerned, 3b and 3c are the same thing.
IOW, somebody can write the extension later.
regards, tom lane