Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names

Hi,

On 2019-05-10 10:43:44 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > The changes necessary for tableam were already huge. Changing naming
> > schemes for functions that are used all over the backend (e.g. ~80 calls
> > to table_beginscan), and where there's other wrapper functions that also
> > widely used (237 calls to systable_beginscan) which didn't have to be
> > touched, at the same time would have made it even harder to review.
>
> If there are no objections to renaming now, as separate independent
> patch, I am happy to do the same and send it across. Will rename to
> make it consistent as mentioned at start of the thread leaving
> table_relation_xxx() ones as is today.

What would you want to rename precisely? Don't think it's useful to
start sending patches before we agree on something concrete. I'm not on
board with patching hundreds systable_beginscan calls (that'll break a
lot of external code, besides the churn of in-core code), nor with the
APIs around that having a diverging name scheme.

Greetings,

Andres Freund