| 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 00:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmPZC2HAXj5jiyhP-Z5tr0OD_ThcMyTy1pSaL-HtdZ15Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, I'd be fine with that, although the disconnect between the type
> name and the comment terminology might confuse some people.
Maybe, but the fact that the ItemIdData struct consists of bit fields
that are all named "lp_*" offers a hint. Plus you have the LP_*
constants that get stored in ItemIdData.lp_flags.
I wouldn't call the struct ItemIdData if I was in a green field
situation, but it doesn't seem too bad under the present
circumstances. I'd rather not change the struct's name, because that
would probably cause problems without any real benefit. OTOH, calling
two closely related but distinct things by the same name is atrocious.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-27 00:35:19 | Re: Fwd: Add tablespace tap test to pg_rewind |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-27 00:07:30 | Re: "Routine Reindexing" docs should be updated to reference REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |