Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names
Date: 2019-05-23 23:32:24
Message-ID: 20190523233224.qn7rbad62hnsem5v@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-05-14 12:11:46 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Thank you. Please find the patch to rename the agreed functions. It would
> be good to make all consistent instead of applying exception to three
> functions but seems no consensus on it. Given table_ api are new, we could
> modify them leaving systable_ ones as is, but as objections left that as is.

I've pushed a slightly modified version (rebase, some additional
newlines due to the longer function names) now. Thanks for the patch!

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-05-23 23:32:29 Re: pg_dump throwing "column number -1 is out of range 0..36" on HEAD
Previous Message David Rowley 2019-05-23 23:14:14 No mention of no CIC support for partitioned index in docs