Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
Date: 2019-01-28 16:49:18
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYF85hohsZw8prKrV_wCpZyupFt=2mtZdPXbcfbr30KOA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the pluggable-storage discussion, there was some talk of renaming
> nodes/relation.h to avoid confusion with the new access/relation.h
> header. I think this is a fine idea, not only because of that conflict
> but because "relation.h" has never made a lot of sense as the file's
> name.

+1.

> After a bit of thought, I propose "pathnodes.h" as the new name.
> That fits in with the other major headers in that directory
> (primnodes.h, parsenodes.h, plannodes.h, execnodes.h), and it seems
> like a reasonable summary of what's in it. Admittedly, Path nodes
> as such are barely a third of the file's bulk; but I don't see any
> equally pithy way to describe the rest of it, unless something like
> planner_data.h, which is pretty unmelodious.

Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we've got now.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2019-01-28 17:01:08 Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-01-28 16:47:39 Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info