On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >> If I read this correctly, we won't change the names of any functions >> that we haven't *already* changed the names of, and only one view would >> be changed to bring it into line with the rest. > > I have now looked through the patch more carefully, and noted some changes > I forgot to account for in my previous summary: it also renames some > function arguments and output columns, which previously were variously > "location", "wal_position", etc. I'd missed that for functions that don't > have a formal view in front of them. This affects > > pg_control_checkpoint > pg_control_recovery > pg_create_logical_replication_slot > pg_create_physical_replication_slot > pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes > pg_logical_slot_get_changes > pg_logical_slot_peek_binary_changes > pg_logical_slot_peek_changes > > So that's an additional source of possible compatibility breaks. > It doesn't seem like enough to change anybody's vote on the issue, > but I mention it for completeness. > > In terms of the alternatives I listed previously, it seems like > nobody liked alternatives #3, #4, or #5, leaving us with #1 (do > nothing) or #2 (apply this patch). By my count, Peter is the > only one in favor of doing nothing, and is outvoted. I'll push > the patch later today if I don't hear additional comments.
For the record, I also voted for doing nothing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers