Hi, On 2019-05-08 17:05:07 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:51 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2019-05-08 00:32:22 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote: > > > The general theme for table function names seem to be > > > "table_<am_callback_name>". For example table_scan_getnextslot() and its > > > corresponding callback scan_getnextslot(). Most of the table functions and > > > callbacks follow mentioned convention except following ones > > > > > > table_beginscan > > > table_endscan > > > table_rescan > > > table_fetch_row_version > > > table_get_latest_tid > > > table_insert > > > table_insert_speculative > > > table_complete_speculative > > > table_delete > > > table_update > > > table_lock_tuple > > > > > > the corresponding callback names for them are > > > > > > scan_begin > > > scan_end > > > scan_rescan > > > > The mismatch here is just due of backward compat with the existing > > function names. > > I am missing something here, would like to know more. table_ seem all > new fresh naming. Hence IMO having consistency with surrounding and > related code carries more weight as I don't know backward compat > serving what purpose. Heap function names can continue to call with > same old names for backward compat if required.
The changes necessary for tableam were already huge. Changing naming schemes for functions that are used all over the backend (e.g. ~80 calls to table_beginscan), and where there's other wrapper functions that also widely used (237 calls to systable_beginscan) which didn't have to be touched, at the same time would have made it even harder to review. Greetings, Andres Freund
