On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:30 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
<alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
Okay, that makes sense.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center