| From: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c? |
| Date: | 2019-12-23 20:28:36 |
| Message-ID: | CALfoeitODkrP1rwe=i0Bg++aTdsgOuTECOYQ6ks+Aw+uznW39g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:34 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was working on some stuff for table AMs, and I got to wonder it we
> had better rename amapi.h to indexam.h and amapi.c to indexam.c, so as
> things are more consistent with table AM. It is a bit annoying to
> name the files dedicated to index AMs with what looks like now a too
> generic name. That would require switching a couple of header files
> for existing module developers, which is always annoying, but the move
> makes sense thinking long-term?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
I had raised the same earlier and [1] has response from Andres, which was
"We probably should rename it, but not in 12..."
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190508215135.4eljnhnle5xp3jwb%40alap3.anarazel.de
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-12-23 21:11:30 | Re: relpages of btree indexes are not truncating even after deleting all the tuples from table and doing vacuum |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2019-12-23 20:08:10 | Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c? |