On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with
>>> backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em).
>>> Do people want to re-vote, understanding that those are the remaining
>>> choices?
>
>> I prefer (3c) put them in an extension and let people that need 'em
>> install 'em, but not have them available by default.
>
> As far as the core code is concerned, 3b and 3c are the same thing.
I think so, too, if we're talking about an extension in core.
My vote is for 3b. If someone wants to write the alias extension and
make it available outside of core, fine -- though they don't need anyone's
vote to do so.
--
Kevin Grittner