On 2017-11-19 17:00:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >> On 2017-11-17 11:23:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I wonder whether we should then rename BufFileCreateTemp to just
> >>> BufFileCreate, since it's no longer possible to have a BufFile that
> >>> isn't temp.
>
> > Here's a patch that does those things. I'm slightly surprised by the
> > renaming suggestion though, because it means that an extension that
> > uses BufFile will need to know how to select the v10 and v11 function
> > name as appropriate. Would you backpatch redirect support for the new
> > name to older versions?
>
> 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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
