On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Smith <g...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
