On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Greg Smith <greg@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.
Will post a updated patch in the next hours unless somebody beats me too it.
Andres
