At Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:49:56 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote
in
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
> > ("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
> > lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")
> >
> > I suppose you don't think the other way around is better?
> > lazy_vacuum_index_heap
>
> Dunno. Let's see if others have other thoughts on the matter. FWIW,
> I have a long history at naming things in a way others don't like :)
lazy_vacuum_heap_index() seems confusing to me. I read the name as
Michael did before looking the above explanation.
lazy_vacuum_heap_and_index() is clearer to me.
lazy_vacuum_heap_with_index() could also work but I'm not sure it's
further better.
I see some function names like that, and some others that have two
verbs bonded by "_and_".
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
