On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 8:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 6:22 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant > > <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > I think that other table AMs are not necessarily going to use the same > > > infomask flags, so I think we should keep a name that is somehow > > > heapam-specific. Maybe "heapam_infomask_flags" would be okay? > > > > > > > It will look bit strange to use heapam as a prefix for this function > > when all others use heap. I guess if we want to keep it AM specific, > > then the proposed name (heap_infomask_flags) is better or > > alternatively we can consider heap_tuple_infomask_flags? > > +1 for heap_tuple_infomask_flags. And do we need to change > tuple_data_split to heap_tuple_data_split as well because it's also a > heap specific function? >
Good thought, but I think even if we want to change the name of tuple_data_split, it might be better done separately. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
