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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2018-12-19T19:21:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:17 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> The current pluggable table storage patchset [1] introduces the ability
> to specify the access method of a table (CREATE TABLE ... USING
> "ident"). The patchset currently names the current storage method
> (i.e. heapam.c et al) "heap" (whereas e.g. zheap's in named, drumroll,
> zheap).

I vote for calling the current heap "heap" - i.e. what the patchset is
currently doing.  As others have already noted, that's a perfectly
good word for storing stuff in no particular order, and it's also a
term with a very long history. If we call it "oheap" or "pile" or
something based on a clever pun, then we'll just be making users learn
a new word for, as far as I can see, no real benefit.

> Another would be to be aggressive in renaming, and deconflict by
> renaming functions like heap_create[_with_catalog] etc to sound more
> accurate. I think that has some appeal, because a lot of those names
> aren't describing their tasks particularly well.

I like that option.

-- 
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.