On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm not sure what our stance is on version-to-version consistency
> of these names, but I'd like to think that we are not stuck for
> all time with the results of these random coin tosses.
These names are fundamentally implementation details, and
implementation details are subject to change without too much warning.
I think it's okay to change the names for consistency along the lines
you propose. ISTM that it's worth going to a little bit of effort to
preserve any existing names. But not too much.
--
Peter Geoghegan