Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
Date: 2019-01-28 15:28:43
Message-ID: CA+HiwqHLzq4WVbQHuAgyud20Fn3TqANDP6sw=wRvO8GesPT7iA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the pluggable-storage discussion, there was some talk of renaming
> nodes/relation.h to avoid confusion with the new access/relation.h
> header. I think this is a fine idea, not only because of that conflict
> but because "relation.h" has never made a lot of sense as the file's
> name.
>
> After a bit of thought, I propose "pathnodes.h" as the new name.
> That fits in with the other major headers in that directory
> (primnodes.h, parsenodes.h, plannodes.h, execnodes.h), and it seems
> like a reasonable summary of what's in it. Admittedly, Path nodes
> as such are barely a third of the file's bulk; but I don't see any
> equally pithy way to describe the rest of it, unless something like
> planner_data.h, which is pretty unmelodious.

optnodes.h, as in optimization-related nodes? I like pathnodes.h too though.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-01-28 15:31:25 Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2019-01-28 15:21:29 Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g