Hi, On 2023-08-12 12:29:05 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > Commit 31966b15 invented a way for functions dealing with relation > extension to accept a Relation in online code and an SMgrRelation in > recovery code (instead of using the earlier FakeRelcacheEntry > concept). It seems highly likely that future new bufmgr.c interfaces > will face the same problem, and need to do something similar. Let's > generalise the names so that each interface doesn't have to re-invent > the wheel? ExtendedBufferWhat is also just not a beautiful name. How > about BufferedObjectSelector? That name leads to macros BOS_SMGR() > and BOS_REL(). Could also be BufMgrObject/BMO, ... etc etc.
I like the idea of generalizing it. I somehow don't quite like BOS*, but I can't really put into words why, so... > This is from a patch-set that I'm about to propose for 17, which needs > one of these too, hence desire to generalise. But if we rename them > in 17, then AM authors, who are likely to discover and make use of > this interface, would have to use different names for 16 and 17. Makes sense to me. Greetings, Andres Freund
