Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:24 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2026, at 03:43, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:15 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27.01.26 12:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
> >>>> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
> >>>> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
> >>>> instance,
> >>>>
> >>>> - RepOriginId
> >>>> - InvalidRepOriginId
> >>>>
> >>>> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
> >>>> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
> >>>> - replorigin_session_origin
> >>>> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
> >>>> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
> >>> adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
> >>> theory/reason to keep them different.
> >>
> >> agreed
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for the comments! I agree to unify the naming.
> >
> > I'm going to push the attached patch, barring any objections.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Masahiko Sawada
> > Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
> > <v1-0001-Standardize-replication-origin-naming-to-use-Repl.patch>
>
> This patch is a pure rename from RepOriginId/InvalidRepOriginId to ReplOriginId/InvalidReplOriginId. I applied it locally, build passed, “make check” passed. And I searched over the source tree for any missing replacement and found none. So, LGTM.
>

Thank you for reviewing the patch. Pushed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com