On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:49 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > Seeing that explanation, I think that's even more of a reason to avoid > the name "current" and use something strikingly different. > > In any case, this function name has been around for some years now and > renaming it just for taste reasons seems unnecessary.
I guess my unspoken assumption was that anyone using this in a query is probably comparing it with collversion and thus already has a query that needs to be rewritten for v14, and therefore it's not a bad time to clean up some naming. But that argument is moot if you don't even agree that the new name's an improvement, so... reverted.
