From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What is an item pointer, anyway? |
Date: | 2019-04-27 00:02:20 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=-VKe_ZXc78VC9K7f8xOGuUc6PafL+Vx2qwKH5dYEGtA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:57 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ItemId[Data] is somewhat less widely referenced, but I'm still not
> much in favor of renaming that type. I think fixing comments to
> uniformly call it an item ID would be more reasonable. (We should
> leave the "line pointer" terminology in place, too; if memory serves,
> an awful lot of variables of the type are named "lp" or variants.
> Renaming all of those is to nobody's benefit.)
I was proposing that we not rename any struct at all, and continue to
call ItemId[Data]s "line pointers" only. This would involve removing
the comment in itemid.h that confusingly refers to line pointers as
"item pointers" (plus any other comments that fail to make a clear
distinction).
I think that the total number of comments that would be affected by
this approach is quite low.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-27 00:05:14 | Re: What is an item pointer, anyway? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-26 23:57:20 | Re: What is an item pointer, anyway? |