Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
> I had been thinking that I should try harder to make the pg_ prefix
> compile-time configurable (imagine some kind of string-pasting macros
> constructing the names), so that TCL and PG could have fewer diffs.
> But we're already not doing that for the function names, so unless Tom
> wants me to try to do that...?
Nah, I don't see much point in that.
> It's a funny position to finish up in: we have pg_ functions, pg_
> types but still standard REG_XXX macros. In the future someone might
> want to rename them all to PG_REG_XXX, so that we completely move out
> of the way of the system regex stuff. But not today, and certainly
> not in back-branches.
That would be an API break for any extensions using our regex code,
so I'm not especially in favor of it.
regards, tom lane
