Re: Rename ExtendedBufferWhat in 16?

On 2023-08-17 11:31:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:49 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Do you like BufferManagerRelation, BMR_REL(), BMR_SMGR()?
>
> Just BM_ would clash with the flag namespace.

I like BMR better!