On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:27 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> writes: > > In this patch, the only instance that doesn't follow the "unique-ify" > > form is the macro IS_UNIQUEIFIED_REL, as dashes are not allowed in C > > identifiers. Maybe a better alternative is IS_RELATION_UNIQUE? Any > > suggestions?
> Hm ... to my ear, "unique-ified" implies that we took some positive > action to make the path's output unique, such as running it through > a hashagg or Unique node. IS_RELATION_UNIQUE only implies that the > output is unique, so for example a scan of a primary key should > satisfy such a predicate. Not having read the patch (I do hope > to get to that), I'm not sure which connotation you have in mind. > If it's the latter, IS_RELATION_UNIQUE seems like a fine name. > If it's the former, maybe something like "RELATION_WAS_MADE_UNIQUE"? > That's not very pretty though ... It's the former: this macro is to signal that we've explicitly taken steps to make the output of the relation unique. IMO, "unique-ified" best describes this, but we cannot use it directly in the macro name because of the dash. Hmm, I think "RELATION_WAS_MADE_UNIQUE" works well because it clearly conveys that the relation has been explicitly unique-ified. It's a bit verbose, but I found that we have similar names in our codebase, such as VAC_BLK_WAS_EAGER_SCANNED. Thanks Richard
