Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 9:49 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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().

Just realised that this should have been BufferTagsEqual instead of
BufferTagEqual

I will modify this and send an updated patch tomorrow.

—
Dilip

> --
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com