On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:30 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2019-Sep-11, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:46 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:29:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Good thought, but I think even if we want to change the name of > > > > tuple_data_split, it might be better done separately. > > > > > > Yes, that's not the problem of this patch. Not sure if it actually > > > makes sense either to change it. > > > > Hmm it will be more consistent with other functions but I think we > > would need to increase the pageinspect version to 1.8 and need the new > > sql file to rename the function name. And it will be for PG12, not > > PG13. If we have to do it someday I think it's better to do it in PG12 > > that the table AM has been introduced to. Anyway I've attached > > separate patch for it. > > I'd rather not change the name of the existing function ... that > function is pretty old (it was introduced in 9.6, commit d6061f83a166). > I think we can regard that name as an historical accident, and use a > modern name convention for the new function (and any hypothetical future > ones) that will, sadly, collide with the historical name for the old > function.
Okay, that makes sense. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
