Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-11-19 17:00:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, but if you're concerned about it, we could maintain API compatibility
>> for extensions with something like
>> #define BufFileCreateTemp(interXact) BufFileCreate(interXact)
> I don't really see a point in doing this renaming in the first
> place. It's not like the Temp suffix has become inaccurate. I'd perhaps
> not add it in the green field, but I don't see a need to change an
> existing function name. If anything it seems confusing because you'd
> miss something when trivially searching the history / comparing
> branches.
Well, that's a fair point about history, but the reason I no longer
want the Temp suffix is that it implies that there's such a thing as
a non-temp BufFile. I think that's misleading if we've cut off any
vestige of support for it.
Anybody else have an opinion?
regards, tom lane
