On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> This is turning into yet another one of those situations where something
>> simple and useful is being killed by trying to generalize it way more
>> than it needs to be, given its current goals and its lack of external
>> interfaces. There's no catversion bump or API breakage to hinder future
>> refactoring if this isn't optimally designed internally from day one.
>
> I agree that it's too late in the cycle for any major redesign of the
> patch. But is it too much to ask to use a less confusing name for the
> function?
+1. Let's just rename the thing, add some comments, and call it good.
...Robert