David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> I certainly could get on board with renaming if there's consensus to
> do so. I don't think that's going to happen in the next 9 hours. Is it
> worth pushing this out to v19 because we can't agree on the name of a
> struct field? I'd be disappointed if we miss this because of something
> so trivial.
Renaming functions or struct fields is hardly something that's forbidden
post-feature-freeze. I think you could go ahead while agreeing to
change that stuff later if there's consensus for it. At this point it
seems much more useful to get some buildfarm mileage on the patch.
(FWIW, I buy your argument that there's a limit to how much complexity
we should shove into the iterator.)
regards, tom lane
