On 2019-01-18 14:19:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > 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.
And pushed. If somebody is interested in renaming/splitting nodes/relation.h, I think that'd be good, but if not, it's also not terrible. - Andres
