Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Meant to stick the question mark in that email, somehow missed. Yes
> not planning to spend any time on it if objections. Here is the list
> of renames I wish to perform.
>
> Lets start with low hanging ones.
>
> table_rescan -> table_scan_rescan
> table_insert -> table_tuple_insert
> table_insert_speculative -> table_tuple_insert_speculative
> table_delete -> table_tuple_delete
> table_update -> table_tuple_update
> table_lock_tuple -> table_tuple_lock
>
> Below two you already mentioned no objections to rename
> table_fetch_row_version -> table_tuple_fetch_row_version
> table_get_latest_tid -> table_tuple_get_latest_tid
>
> Now, table_beginscan and table_endscan are the ones which are
> wide-spread.

I vote to rename all the ones where the new name would contain "tuple"
and to leave the others alone.  i.e. leave table_beginscan,
table_endscan, and table_rescan as they are.  I think that there's
little benefit in standardizing table_rescan but not the other two,
and we seem to agree that tinkering with the other two gets into a
painful amount of churn.

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