| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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: | 2022-07-26 18:37:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobLpTDfLco7me_bnyX=TZkO93ZeT7gFNjTAvqvADUx7DA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-26 18:40:49 | Re: let's disallow ALTER ROLE bootstrap_superuser NOSUPERUSER |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2022-07-26 18:35:13 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |