On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:38 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> /*
> - * Prune specified item pointer or a HOT chain originating at that item.
> + * Prune specified line pointer or a HOT chain originating at that item.
> *
> * If the item is an index-referenced tuple (i.e. not a heap-only tuple),
>
>
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Attached draft patch adjusts code comments and error messages where a
>> line pointer is referred to as an item pointer. It turns out that this
>> practice isn't all that prevalent. Here are some specific concerns
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached draft patch adjusts code comments and error messages where a
> line pointer is referred to as an item pointer. It turns out that this
> practice isn't all that prevalent. Here are some specific concerns
> that I had to think about
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:13 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, I'd be fine with that, although the disconnect between the type
> > name and the comment terminology might confuse some people.
>
> Maybe, but the fact that the ItemIdData struct
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I'd be fine with that, although the disconnect between the type
> name and the comment terminology might confuse some people.
Maybe, but the fact that the ItemIdData struct consists of bit fields
that are all named "lp_*" offers a hint.
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> I was proposing that we not rename any struct at all, and continue to
> call ItemId[Data]s "line pointers" only.
Yeah, I'd be fine with that, although the disconnect between the type
name and the comment terminology might confuse some people.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> ItemId[Data] is somewhat less widely referenced, but I'm still not
> much in favor of renaming that type. I think fixing comments to
> uniformly call it an item ID would be more reasonable. (We should
> leave the "line pointer" terminology in
Ashwin Agrawal writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> ISTM that the
>> least confusing way of removing the ambiguity would be to no longer
>> refer to ItemIds as item pointers, without changing anything else.
How many places would we be changing to clean that up?
>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:23 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> How about we rename ItemPointerData to TupleIdentifier or ItemIdentifier
> instead and leave ItemPointer or Item confined to AM term, where item can be
> tuple, datum or anything else ?
I'm not a fan of that idea, because the reality is
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> itemid.h introduces the struct ItemIdData as follows:
>
> /*
> * An item pointer (also called line pointer) on a buffer page
>
> Meanwhile, itemptr.h introduces the struct ItemPointerData as follows:
>
> /*
> * ItemPointer:
> *
> *
itemid.h introduces the struct ItemIdData as follows:
/*
* An item pointer (also called line pointer) on a buffer page
Meanwhile, itemptr.h introduces the struct ItemPointerData as follows:
/*
* ItemPointer:
*
* This is a pointer to an item within a disk page of a known file
* (for
11 matches
Mail list logo
