Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > I don't really see a point in doing this renaming in the first > place. It's not like the Temp suffix has become inaccurate. I'd perhaps > not add it in the green field, but I don't see a need to change an > existing function name. If anything it seems confusing because you'd > miss something when trivially searching the history / comparing > branches.
It seems that the vote is 2-1 against renaming that function, so I've committed Thomas' patch without that and with some additional comment-smithing. regards, tom lane