On 2023-08-17 11:31:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > 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.
I like BMR better!
