Horton

Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-01-16T16:08:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Replace heapam.h includes with {table, relation}.h where applicable.

  2. Replace uses of heap_open et al with the corresponding table_* function.

  3. Introduce access/{table.h, relation.h}, for generic functions from heapam.h.