Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-May-10, Andres Freund wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that this is more churn than I think is useful to
>> tackle after feature freeze, with not sufficient benefits.  If others
>> chime in, voting to do this, I'm OK with doing that, but otherwise I
>> think there's more important stuff to do.

> One issue is that if we don't change things now, we can never change it
> afterwards, so we should make some effort to ensure that naming is
> sensible.  And we already changed the names of the whole interface.

Yeah.  I do not have an opinion on whether these changes are actually
improvements, but renaming right now is way less painful than it would
be to rename post-v12.  Let's try to get it right the first time,
especially with functions we already renamed in this cycle.

I do think that the "too much churn" argument has merit for places
that were *not* already changed in v12.  In particular I'd vote against
renaming the systable_xxx functions.

            regards, tom lane