Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Standardize replication origin naming to use "ReplOrigin".

  1. RepOrigin vs. replorigin

    Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2026-01-26T21:24:27Z

    Hi all,

While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
instance,

- RepOriginId
- InvalidRepOriginId

- RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
- XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
- replorigin_session_origin
- replorigin_session_xxx() functions

Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  2. Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2026-01-27T11:02:22Z

    On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
> instance,
>
> - RepOriginId
> - InvalidRepOriginId
>
> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
> - replorigin_session_origin
> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
>
> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
>

AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
theory/reason to keep them different.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

  3. Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

    Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2026-01-27T16:15:42Z

    On 27.01.26 12:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
>> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
>> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
>> instance,
>>
>> - RepOriginId
>> - InvalidRepOriginId
>>
>> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
>> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
>> - replorigin_session_origin
>> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
>>
>> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
>> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
>>
> 
> AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
> adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
> theory/reason to keep them different.

agreed

  4. Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

    Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2026-01-27T19:43:53Z

    On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:15 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 27.01.26 12:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
> >> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
> >> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
> >> instance,
> >>
> >> - RepOriginId
> >> - InvalidRepOriginId
> >>
> >> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
> >> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
> >> - replorigin_session_origin
> >> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
> >>
> >> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
> >> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
> >>
> >
> > AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
> > adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
> > theory/reason to keep them different.
>
> agreed
>

Thank you for the comments! I agree to unify the naming.

I'm going to push the attached patch, barring any objections.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  5. Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

    Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> — 2026-01-27T22:23:25Z

    
> On Jan 28, 2026, at 03:43, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:15 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 27.01.26 12:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
>>>> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
>>>> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
>>>> instance,
>>>> 
>>>> - RepOriginId
>>>> - InvalidRepOriginId
>>>> 
>>>> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
>>>> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
>>>> - replorigin_session_origin
>>>> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
>>>> 
>>>> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
>>>> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
>>> adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
>>> theory/reason to keep them different.
>> 
>> agreed
>> 
> 
> Thank you for the comments! I agree to unify the naming.
> 
> I'm going to push the attached patch, barring any objections.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Masahiko Sawada
> Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
> <v1-0001-Standardize-replication-origin-naming-to-use-Repl.patch>

This patch is a pure rename from RepOriginId/InvalidRepOriginId to ReplOriginId/InvalidReplOriginId. I applied it locally, build passed, “make check” passed. And I searched over the source tree for any missing replacement and found none. So, LGTM.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

  6. Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

    Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2026-01-28T20:55:33Z

    On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:24 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2026, at 03:43, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:15 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27.01.26 12:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
> >>>> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
> >>>> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
> >>>> instance,
> >>>>
> >>>> - RepOriginId
> >>>> - InvalidRepOriginId
> >>>>
> >>>> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
> >>>> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
> >>>> - replorigin_session_origin
> >>>> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
> >>>> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
> >>> adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
> >>> theory/reason to keep them different.
> >>
> >> agreed
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for the comments! I agree to unify the naming.
> >
> > I'm going to push the attached patch, barring any objections.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Masahiko Sawada
> > Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
> > <v1-0001-Standardize-replication-origin-naming-to-use-Repl.patch>
>
> This patch is a pure rename from RepOriginId/InvalidRepOriginId to ReplOriginId/InvalidReplOriginId. I applied it locally, build passed, “make check” passed. And I searched over the source tree for any missing replacement and found none. So, LGTM.
>

Thank you for reviewing the patch. Pushed.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com