Re: Rename ExtendedBufferWhat in 16?

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:49 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2023-08-12 12:29:05 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Commit 31966b15 invented a way for functions dealing with relation
> > extension to accept a Relation in online code and an SMgrRelation in
> > recovery code (instead of using the earlier FakeRelcacheEntry
> > concept). It seems highly likely that future new bufmgr.c interfaces
> > will face the same problem, and need to do something similar. Let's
> > generalise the names so that each interface doesn't have to re-invent
> > the wheel? ExtendedBufferWhat is also just not a beautiful name. How
> > about BufferedObjectSelector? That name leads to macros BOS_SMGR()
> > and BOS_REL(). Could also be BufMgrObject/BMO, ... etc etc.
>
> I like the idea of generalizing it. I somehow don't quite like BOS*, but I
> can't really put into words why, so...

Do you like BufferManagerRelation, BMR_REL(), BMR_SMGR()?

Just BM_ would clash with the flag namespace.

> > This is from a patch-set that I'm about to propose for 17, which needs
> > one of these too, hence desire to generalise. But if we rename them
> > in 17, then AM authors, who are likely to discover and make use of
> > this interface, would have to use different names for 16 and 17.
>
> Makes sense to me.

Does anyone else want to object? Restating the case in brief: commit
31966b15's naming is short-sighted and likely to lead to a
proliferation of similar things or a renaming in later releases.