Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> While this is attractive, the same logic would suggest that we rename >> pg_malloc() to palloc(), and that sounds wrong. The frontend and >> backend functions do have different freeing semantics.
> I'd almost be inclined to go the other way and suggest that we try to > use the pg_ prefix more, at least for things to be shared between > front and back end code. Meh. I think that mainly promotes carpal tunnel syndrome. The place for a pg_ prefix is in functions we intend to expose to the "outside world", such as functions exposed by libpq. But these are not that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers