On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
> > 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
>
> That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we're giving
> Ruby (and potentially every other library on the planet) veto power over
> our function namespace. That does not scale, especially not when the
> feedback loop has a time constant measured in years :-(
>
> I don't have a huge objection to renaming the rbtree functions, other
> than the precedent it sets ...
Maybe prefixing with pg_ would better than rb_ to rbt_. That's our
semi-standard namespace prefix, I think. Of course nothing keeps
somebody else from using it, too, but we can hope that they won't.
It's certainly not very surprising that Ruby has symbols starting with
rb_...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
