Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
