Thread

Commits

  1. doc: Mention naming convention used by injection points

  2. Rename injection point for invalidation messages at end of transaction

  1. doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> — 2025-04-14T11:01:51Z

    Dear hackers,
    
    This is a forked thread from [1]. 
    
    Naming rule of points is not determined yet, but most of them have lower cases
    and each term are divided by dash "-". I think this is a good chance to formally
    clarify it. PSA adding the description.
    
    I was confused the correct place for the description. I added at the end of first
    paragraph, because it describes how we add and use it. Suggestions are very
    welcomed.
    
    [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OSCPR01MB14966B78F3AF15C252EB9E02FF5B32%40OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
    
    Best regards,
    Hayato Kuroda
    FUJITSU LIMITED
    
    
  2. Re: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> — 2025-04-14T11:51:24Z

    Hi,
    
    > Naming rule of points is not determined yet, but most of them have lower cases
    > and each term are divided by dash "-". I think this is a good chance to formally
    > clarify it. PSA adding the description.
    >
    > I was confused the correct place for the description. I added at the end of first
    > paragraph, because it describes how we add and use it. Suggestions are very
    > welcomed.
    
    ```
    -     their own code using the same macro.
    +     their own code using the same macro.  The name of injection points must be
    +     lower characters, and dashes must separate its terms.
    ```
    
    Perhaps "must" is a too strong statement. I suggest something like:
    
    """
    By convention, the name of injection points ...
    """
    
    I have mixed feelings about the patch overall though. This would mean
    that we need to rename injection points like this:
    
    ``
    AtEOXact_Inval-with-transInvalInfo
    heap_update-before-pin
    ```
    
    Otherwise we would contradict our own documentation.
    
    I don't mind heap-update-before-pin, but not 100% sure if:
    
    at-eo-xact-inval-with-trans-inval-info
    
    ... would be a better name than the current one.
    
    --
    Best regards,
    Aleksander Alekseev
    
    
    
    
  3. RE: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> — 2025-04-14T12:36:20Z

    Dear Aleksander,
    
    
    > ```
    > -     their own code using the same macro.
    > +     their own code using the same macro.  The name of injection points must
    > be
    > +     lower characters, and dashes must separate its terms.
    > ```
    > 
    > Perhaps "must" is a too strong statement. I suggest something like:
    > 
    > """
    > By convention, the name of injection points ...
    > """
    
    It is always difficult for me to distinguish them, thanks for comments.
    PSA updated.
    
    > 
    > I have mixed feelings about the patch overall though. This would mean
    > that we need to rename injection points like this:
    > 
    > ``
    > AtEOXact_Inval-with-transInvalInfo
    > heap_update-before-pin
    > ```
    > 
    > Otherwise we would contradict our own documentation.
    
    Thanks for telling these counterexamples. I grepped with "INJECTION_POINTS" and
    "IS_INJECTION_POINT_ATTACHED", and no others are found.
    
    > I don't mind heap-update-before-pin, but not 100% sure if:
    > 
    > at-eo-xact-inval-with-trans-inval-info
    > 
    > ... would be a better name than the current one.
    
    I also feel just converting lower case is not good. The point seems to locate in
    the end-of-transaction callback and it accepts invalidation messages. Based on the
    fact, how about "inval-process-invalidation-messages"?
    0002 did simple replacements of these words.
    
    Best regards,
    Hayato Kuroda
    FUJITSU LIMITED
    
    
  4. Re: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-04-21T07:29:56Z

    On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:36:20PM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
    > I also feel just converting lower case is not good. The point seems to locate in
    > the end-of-transaction callback and it accepts invalidation messages. Based on the
    > fact, how about "inval-process-invalidation-messages"?
    > 0002 did simple replacements of these words.
    
    -	INJECTION_POINT("heap_update-before-pin");
    +	INJECTION_POINT("heap-update-before-pin");
    
    The former name is better IMO.  heap_update() is the name of the
    function where the point is defined.
    
    -	INJECTION_POINT("AtEOXact_Inval-with-transInvalInfo");
    +	INJECTION_POINT("inval-process-invalidation-messages");
    
    This naming has been puzzling me, though, so a rename looks fit.  I am 
    not sure that this is the best name that matches with this code path,
    as this lacks a reference regarding the end of a transaction.  Perhaps
    something like "end-transaction-process-inval" would be better?
    --
    Michael
    
  5. RE: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> — 2025-04-21T12:10:51Z

    Dear Michael,
    
    > > I also feel just converting lower case is not good. The point seems to locate in
    > > the end-of-transaction callback and it accepts invalidation messages. Based on
    > the
    > > fact, how about "inval-process-invalidation-messages"?
    > > 0002 did simple replacements of these words.
    > 
    > -	INJECTION_POINT("heap_update-before-pin");
    > +	INJECTION_POINT("heap-update-before-pin");
    > 
    > The former name is better IMO.  heap_update() is the name of the
    > function where the point is defined.
    > 
    > -	INJECTION_POINT("AtEOXact_Inval-with-transInvalInfo");
    > +	INJECTION_POINT("inval-process-invalidation-messages");
    > 
    > This naming has been puzzling me, though, so a rename looks fit.  I am
    > not sure that this is the best name that matches with this code path,
    > as this lacks a reference regarding the end of a transaction.  Perhaps
    > something like "end-transaction-process-inval" would be better?
    
    Thanks for suggesting them. ISTM, you are correct. PSA updated version.
    
    Best regards,
    Hayato Kuroda
    FUJITSU LIMITED
    
    
  6. Re: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-04-22T03:43:06Z

    On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 12:10:51PM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
    > Thanks for suggesting them. ISTM, you are correct. PSA updated version.
    
    Thanks, I've applied some slight tweaks, and applied the result down
    to v17, leaving the heap_update point alone.
    --
    Michael
    
  7. RE: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points

    Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> — 2025-04-22T04:02:21Z

    Dear Michael,
    
    > Thanks, I've applied some slight tweaks, and applied the result down
    > to v17, leaving the heap_update point alone.
    
    Thanks, I confirmed your commit on HEAD and LGTM.
    
    Best regards,
    Hayato Kuroda
    FUJITSU LIMITED