The general theme for table function names seem to be "table_<am_callback_name>". For example table_scan_getnextslot() and its corresponding callback scan_getnextslot(). Most of the table functions and callbacks follow mentioned convention except following ones
table_beginscan table_endscan table_rescan table_fetch_row_version table_get_latest_tid table_insert table_insert_speculative table_complete_speculative table_delete table_update table_lock_tuple the corresponding callback names for them are scan_begin scan_end scan_rescan tuple_fetch_row_version tuple_get_latest_tid tuple_insert tuple_insert_speculative tuple_delete tuple_update tuple_lock It confuses while browsing through the code and hence I would like to propose we make them consistent. Either fix the callback names or table functions but all should follow the same convention, makes it easy to browse around and refer to as well. Personally, I would say fix the table function names as callback names seem fine. So, for example, make it table_scan_begin(). Also, some of these table function names read little odd table_relation_set_new_filenode table_relation_nontransactional_truncate table_relation_copy_data table_relation_copy_for_cluster table_relation_vacuum table_relation_estimate_size Can we drop relation word from callback names and as a result from these function names as well? Just have callback names as set_new_filenode, copy_data, estimate_size? Also, a question about comments. Currently, redundant comments are written above callback functions as also above table functions. They differ sometimes a little bit on descriptions but majority content still being the same. Should we have only one place finalized to have the comments to keep them in sync and also know which one to refer to? Plus, file name amapi.h now seems very broad, if possible should be renamed to indexamapi.h or indexam.h to follow tableam.h. No idea what's our policy around header file renames.
