| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove traces of long in dynahash.c |
| Date: | 2025-08-20 23:07:17 |
| Message-ID: | aKZVJZ_XxO6A10la@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:14:15PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> I wonder if we can keep the same naming style to make the new
> function name like next_pow2_64()?
I don't think that this would be a good idea to have new routines
published in pg_bitutils.h with names inconsistent with the existing
one. next_pow2_long() and next_pow2_int() are now local to
dynahash.c, so we don't really have to follow their naming pattern.
It would be more important to me to choose a new name, rather in line
with the other ones.
After sleeping on it, I am not sure what to do with these routines. I
don't deny that more refactoring can be done. However, all that can
also happen outside the long -> int64 switch I am suggesting.
Any comments from others?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-08-20 23:12:36 | Re: VM corruption on standby |
| Previous Message | Kirk Wolak | 2025-08-20 23:03:47 | Re: date_trunc function in interval version |