Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin
Date: 2026-01-27 16:15:42
Message-ID: ab3f573e-8218-4665-be62-3bb8ae0055f7@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2026-01-27 16:16:13 Re: pgsql: Prevent invalidation of newly synced replication slots.
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2026-01-27 16:14:12 Re: Extended Statistics set/restore/clear functions.