Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)

On 24/10/14 23:03, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 10/24/14, 12:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> - What should we call dsm_unkeep_mapping, if not that?
>>
>> Only option I can think of beyond unkeep would be
>> dsm_(un)register_keep_mapping. Dunno that it's worth it.
>
> Hmm, we could rename dsm_keep_mapping() to dsm_unregister_mapping(),
> since it's arranging to keep it by unregistering it from the resource
> owner. And then we could call the new function
> dsm_register_mapping(). That has the appeal that "unregister" is a
> word, whereas "unkeep" isn't, but it's a little confusing otherwise,
> because the sense is reversed vs. the current naming. Or we could
> just leave dsm_keep_mapping() alone and call the new function
> dsm_register_mapping(). A little non-orthogonal, but I think it'd be
> OK.
>

I don't like that too much, but I don't have better suggestion, if we
went with one of these, I would prefer taking the route of renaming the
dsm_keep_mapping to dsm_unregister_mapping.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services