On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:14:15PM +0800, Chao Li wrote: > I wonder if we can keep the same naming style to make the new > function name like next_pow2_64()?
I don't think that this would be a good idea to have new routines published in pg_bitutils.h with names inconsistent with the existing one. next_pow2_long() and next_pow2_int() are now local to dynahash.c, so we don't really have to follow their naming pattern. It would be more important to me to choose a new name, rather in line with the other ones. After sleeping on it, I am not sure what to do with these routines. I don't deny that more refactoring can be done. However, all that can also happen outside the long -> int64 switch I am suggesting. Any comments from others? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
