> No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus
> current_schema() -- or pg_get_viewdef() versus obj_description() ).
> Now that we have table functions, we might be using more built-in
> functions to provide information to the user -- so there will be
> an increasing need for some kind of naming convention for built-in
> functions. However, establishing a naming convention without
> breaking backwards compatibility might be tricky.
I personally think that as many functions as possible should be prefixed
pg_*... People are still used to avoiding pg_ as a prefix.
Chris
