| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>,Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename? |
| Date: | 2019-01-16 16:20:37 |
| Message-ID: | 061122E1-8F16-4D3E-8BC2-FB07821BE498@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On January 16, 2019 8:08:09 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:23 PM Haribabu Kommi
><kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> access/relation.[c|h] name is fine. Or how about access/rel.[c|h],
>> because nodes/relation.h is related to planner. utils/rel.h is some
>how
>> related to relation caches.
>
>Insofar as we can reasonably do so, I'd rather pick unique names for
>header files. I know that there's no law that rules out having both
>nodes/relation.h and access/relation.h, or likewise utils/rel.h and
>access/rel.h; the computer won't be confused. But it might create
>some confusion among human beings, so my vote is for avoiding that
>sort of thing if we can.
I prefer that too - if the new name isn't worse enough to make it hard to remember. I'd welcome suggestions that don't conflict...
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-16 16:22:29 | Re: insensitive collations |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-16 16:17:43 | Re: additional foreign key test coverage |