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?
regards, tom lane
