From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
Date: | 2022-07-27 16:19:38 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-srGSye68DGvkT25DavmQEeTRXJSbJH86WYiqDY3QjPUg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:07 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:07 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I have thought about it while doing so but I am not sure whether it is
> > a good idea or not, because before my change these all were macros
> > with 2 naming conventions so I just changed to inline function so why
> > to change the name.
>
> Well, the reason to change the name would be for consistency. It feels
> weird to have some NAMES_LIKETHIS() and other NamesLikeThis().
>
> Now, an argument against that is that it will make back-patching more
> annoying, if any code using these functions/macros is touched. But
> since the calling sequence is changing anyway (you now have to pass a
> pointer rather than the object itself) that argument doesn't really
> carry any weight. So I would favor ClearBufferTag(), InitBufferTag(),
> etc.
Okay, so I have renamed these 2 functions and BUFFERTAGS_EQUAL as well
to BufferTagEqual().
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v13-0001-Convert-buf_internal.h-macros-to-static-inline-f.patch | text/x-patch | 12.5 KB |
v13-0002-Preliminary-refactoring-for-supporting-larger.patch | text/x-patch | 23.1 KB |
v13-0003-Widen-relfilenumber-from-32-bits-to-56-bits.patch | text/x-patch | 105.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-27 16:27:06 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
Previous Message | Roberto C. Sánchez | 2022-07-27 15:52:47 | Re: Request for assistance to backport CVE-2022-1552 fixes to 9.6 and 9.4 |