On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hmm, in that case, I think the problem is that this function has no
>> comment explaining its intended charter.
>
> That's certainly a big problem, but a comment won't fix the fact that
> the name is misleading. We need both a comment and a name change.
I think you're probably right, but it's not clear what the new name
should be until we have a comment explaining what the function is
responsible for.
...Robert