Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-01-27T16:15:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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




Commits

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