On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > > +1. Let's just rename the thing, add some comments, and call it good. Will post a updated patch in the next hours unless somebody beats me too it. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
