Re: [PATCH] Implement uuid_version()

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I think the alternatives are:

> 1. We keep the code in both places.  This is fine.  There is no problem
> with having the same C function or the same SQL function name in both
> places.

> 2. We remove the C function from pgcrypto and make an extension version
> bump.  This will create breakage for (some) current users of the
> function from pgcrypto.

> So option 2 would ironically punish the very users we are trying to
> help.  So I think just doing nothing is the best option.

Hm.  Option 1 means that it's a bit unclear which function you are
actually calling.  As long as the implementations behave identically,
that seems okay, but I wonder if that's a constraint we want for the
long term.

A possible option 3 is to keep the function in pgcrypto but change
its C code to call the core code.

			regards, tom lane