> Buffer ReadBuffer(Relation reln, BlockNumber blockNum); > Buffer ReadBufferExt(Relation reln, ForkNumber forkNum, BlockNumber > blockNum, BufferAccessStrategy strategy, ReadBufferMode mode); > Buffer ReadBufferWithoutRelcache(RelFileNode rnode, bool isTemp, ForkNumber > forkNum, BlockNumber blockNum, ReadBufferMode mode); > > Thoughts?
I'm not sure why we would abbreviate Extended to Ext when nothing else in here is abbreviated. Seems needlessly inconsistent. We may also want to rethink our approach to BufferAccessStrategy a bit. Right now, we don't admit that GetBufferAccessStrategy(BAS_NORMAL) just returns a NULL pointer - we expect the caller to get that strategy and later call FreeBufferAccessStrategy it just as if it were a real object. Particularly in light of this API change, I think we should just give up on that. Otherwise, a caller that wants to specify a fork number or ReadBufferMode has to get and free an access strategy that doesn't amount to anything. Perhaps it would be sufficient to do this: #define NormalBufferAccessStrategy NULL That way, it would be easy to grep for any place where we used this to get around a useless pair of get/free calls if we ever need to go back and make a normal buffer access strategy into a real object. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
