On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:49 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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...
Do you like BufferManagerRelation, BMR_REL(), BMR_SMGR()? Just BM_ would clash with the flag namespace. > > 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. Does anyone else want to object? Restating the case in brief: commit 31966b15's naming is short-sighted and likely to lead to a proliferation of similar things or a renaming in later releases.
