From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rename ExtendedBufferWhat in 16? |
Date: | 2023-08-16 22:49:49 |
Message-ID: | 20230816224949.ebnupxjx5luwu5q6@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-08-12 12:29:05 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Commit 31966b15 invented a way for functions dealing with relation
> extension to accept a Relation in online code and an SMgrRelation in
> recovery code (instead of using the earlier FakeRelcacheEntry
> concept). It seems highly likely that future new bufmgr.c interfaces
> will face the same problem, and need to do something similar. Let's
> generalise the names so that each interface doesn't have to re-invent
> the wheel? ExtendedBufferWhat is also just not a beautiful name. How
> about BufferedObjectSelector? That name leads to macros BOS_SMGR()
> and BOS_REL(). Could also be BufMgrObject/BMO, ... etc etc.
I like the idea of generalizing it. I somehow don't quite like BOS*, but I
can't really put into words why, so...
> This is from a patch-set that I'm about to propose for 17, which needs
> one of these too, hence desire to generalise. But if we rename them
> in 17, then AM authors, who are likely to discover and make use of
> this interface, would have to use different names for 16 and 17.
Makes sense to me.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-16 22:54:32 | Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16. |
Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-08-16 22:11:22 | Re: Logging of matching pg_hba.conf entry during auth skips trust auth, potential security issue |