On 2018/11/01 8:58, David Rowley wrote: > On 1 November 2018 at 06:45, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:30 AM David Rowley >> <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> On 22 August 2018 at 19:08, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >>> wrote: >>>> +#define PartitionTupRoutingGetToParentMap(p, i) \ >>>> +#define PartitionTupRoutingGetToChildMap(p, i) \ >>>> >>>> If the "Get" could be replaced by "Child" and "Parent", respectively, >>>> they'd sound more meaningful, imho. >>> >>> I did that to save 3 chars. I think putting the additional >>> Child/Parent in the name is not really required. It's not as if we're >>> going to have a ParentToParent or a ChildToChild map, so I thought it >>> might be okay to assume that if it's "ToParent", that it's being >>> converted from the child and "ToChild" seems safe to assume it's being >>> converted from the parent. I can change it though if you feel very >>> strongly that what I've got is no good. >> >> I'm not sure exactly what is best here, but it seems to unlikely to me >> that somebody is going to read that macro name and think, oh, that >> means "get the to-parent map". They are more like be confused by the >> juxtaposition of "get" and "to". >> >> I think a better way to shorten the name would be to truncate the >> PartitionTupRouting() prefix in some way, e.g. dropping TupRouting. > > Thanks for chipping in on this. > > I agree. I don't think "TupRouting" really needs to be in the name. > Probably "To" can also just become "2" and we can put back the > Parent/Child before that.
Agree that "TupRouting" can go, but "To" is not too long for using "2" instead of it. Thanks, Amit
