On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm not sure what our stance is on version-to-version consistency > of these names, but I'd like to think that we are not stuck for > all time with the results of these random coin tosses.
These names are fundamentally implementation details, and implementation details are subject to change without too much warning. I think it's okay to change the names for consistency along the lines you propose. ISTM that it's worth going to a little bit of effort to preserve any existing names. But not too much. -- Peter Geoghegan
