On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:28:21 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Yeah. The long and short of this is that we're trampling on namespace
> > that reasonably belongs to Ruby --- if they had some functions named
> > "pg_something" and complained about a collision with libpq, would we
> > change? Nope. So really we should rename these.
>
> > Barring objections I'll go make this happen shortly.
>
> Done. I realized that the immediate problem, rb_iterate(), was only
> added as of PG v10, which may explain why we hadn't heard complaints
> about this till now. So I've made the change only as far back as v10.
> In principle we could change the rbtree code in 9.5/9.6 as well, but
> I think that's more likely to create problems than fix any.
The 'rb_iterate' seems to exist at least in REL9_2_STABLE branch, so it is
probably much older. No need to backpatch of course -- just saying. That
said, I'm still not sure how this could work before ... Maybe it has not
been working for some time.
Pavel
