Hi, On 2019-05-10 12:43:06 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:51 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 2019-05-10 10:43:44 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote: > > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > The changes necessary for tableam were already huge. Changing naming > > > > schemes for functions that are used all over the backend (e.g. ~80 calls > > > > to table_beginscan), and where there's other wrapper functions that also > > > > widely used (237 calls to systable_beginscan) which didn't have to be > > > > touched, at the same time would have made it even harder to review. > > > > > > If there are no objections to renaming now, as separate independent > > > patch, I am happy to do the same and send it across. Will rename to > > > make it consistent as mentioned at start of the thread leaving > > > table_relation_xxx() ones as is today. > > > > What would you want to rename precisely? Don't think it's useful to > > start sending patches before we agree on something concrete. I'm not on > > board with patching hundreds systable_beginscan calls (that'll break a > > lot of external code, besides the churn of in-core code), nor with the > > APIs around that having a diverging name scheme. > > Meant to stick the question mark in that email, somehow missed. Yes > not planning to spend any time on it if objections. Here is the list > of renames I wish to perform. > > Lets start with low hanging ones. > > table_rescan -> table_scan_rescan > git grep table_rescan | wc -l > 6 > > table_insert -> table_tuple_insert > git grep tuple_insert | wc -l > 13 > > table_insert_speculative -> table_tuple_insert_speculative > git grep tuple_insert_speculative | wc -l > 5 > > table_delete -> table_tuple_delete (table_delete reads incorrect as > not deleting the table) > git grep tuple_delete | wc -l > 8 > > table_update -> table_tuple_update > git grep tuple_update | wc -l > 5 > > table_lock_tuple -> table_tuple_lock > git grep tuple_lock | wc -l > 26 > > > Below two you already mentioned no objections to rename > table_fetch_row_version -> table_tuple_fetch_row_version > table_get_latest_tid -> table_tuple_get_latest_tid > > > Now, table_beginscan and table_endscan are the ones which are > wide-spread. Desire seems we should keep it consistent with > systable_beginscan. Understand the constraints and churn aspect, given > that diverging naming scheme is unavoidable. Why not leave > systable_beginscan as it is and only rename table_beginscan and its > counterparts table_beginscan_xxx() atleast? > > Index interfaces and table interfaces have some diverged naming scheme > already like index_getnext_slot and table_scan_getnextslot. Not > proposing to change them. But at least reducing wherever possible > sooner would be helpful.
My personal opinion is that this is more churn than I think is useful to tackle after feature freeze, with not sufficient benefits. If others chime in, voting to do this, I'm OK with doing that, but otherwise I think there's more important stuff to do. Greetings, Andres Freund