Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename?
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-01-18T22:19:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2019-01-16 08:20:37 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On January 16, 2019 8:08:09 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:23 PM Haribabu Kommi > ><kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote: > >> access/relation.[c|h] name is fine. Or how about access/rel.[c|h], > >> because nodes/relation.h is related to planner. utils/rel.h is some > >how > >> related to relation caches. > > > >Insofar as we can reasonably do so, I'd rather pick unique names for > >header files. I know that there's no law that rules out having both > >nodes/relation.h and access/relation.h, or likewise utils/rel.h and > >access/rel.h; the computer won't be confused. But it might create > >some confusion among human beings, so my vote is for avoiding that > >sort of thing if we can. > > I prefer that too - if the new name isn't worse enough to make it hard > to remember. I'd welcome suggestions that don't conflict... Unless somebody comes up with a better suggestion I'm planning to press ahead with this one. It's large enough to be a bit of a pain to maintain over time... I'm absolutely not wedded to access/relation.h, so I'm happy with another good suggestion, or somebody revising it subsequently. Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
-
Replace heapam.h includes with {table, relation}.h where applicable.
- 111944c5ee56 12.0 landed
-
Replace uses of heap_open et al with the corresponding table_* function.
- e0c4ec07284d 12.0 landed
-
Introduce access/{table.h, relation.h}, for generic functions from heapam.h.
- 4b21acf522d7 12.0 landed