| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "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 16:08:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ+JGst=m4axWWK7BCQ-YEMK6XVP3qw0LjvYtUs2T+OHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2019-01-16 16:09:26 | Re: draft patch for strtof() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-16 16:07:26 | Re: draft patch for strtof() |