Re: doc patch: clarify the naming rule for injection_points
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'Aleksander Alekseev' <aleksander@timescale.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-04-21T07:29:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
Commits
-
doc: Mention naming convention used by injection points
- 185d345d7909 17.5 landed
- e29df428a1dc 18.0 landed
-
Rename injection point for invalidation messages at end of transaction
- 21a9b2b086fa 17.5 landed
- 02c63f9438e0 18.0 landed