On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 12:49, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2019-05-18 06:14:15 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > I actually feel that the function name itself is not correct here, it > > appears to be confusing and inconsistent considering the kind of work that > > it is doing. I think, the function name should have been CopyMultiInsert > > *Buffer*NextFreeSlot() instead of CopyMultiInsert*Info*NextFreeSlot(). What > > do you think, Andres, David, Alvaro ? > > Unless somebody else presses back hard against doing so *soon*, I'm > going to close this open issue. I don't think it's worth spending > further time arguing about a few characters.
I'd say if we're not going to bother removing the unused param that there's not much point in renaming the function. The proposed name might make sense if the function was: static inline TupleTableSlot * CopyMultiInsertBufferNextFreeSlot(CopyMultiInsertBuffer *buffer, Relation rel) then that might be worth a commit, but giving it that name without changing the signature to that does not seem like an improvement to me. I'm personally about +0.1 for making the above change, which is well below my threshold for shouting and screaming. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
