Hi, On 2019-01-16 08:20:37 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On January 16, 2019 8:08:09 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:23 PM Haribabu Kommi > ><kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> access/relation.[c|h] name is fine. Or how about access/rel.[c|h], > >> because nodes/relation.h is related to planner. utils/rel.h is some > >how > >> related to relation caches. > > > >Insofar as we can reasonably do so, I'd rather pick unique names for > >header files. I know that there's no law that rules out having both > >nodes/relation.h and access/relation.h, or likewise utils/rel.h and > >access/rel.h; the computer won't be confused. But it might create > >some confusion among human beings, so my vote is for avoiding that > >sort of thing if we can. > > I prefer that too - if the new name isn't worse enough to make it hard > to remember. I'd welcome suggestions that don't conflict...
Unless somebody comes up with a better suggestion I'm planning to press ahead with this one. It's large enough to be a bit of a pain to maintain over time... I'm absolutely not wedded to access/relation.h, so I'm happy with another good suggestion, or somebody revising it subsequently. Greetings, Andres Freund
