On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-05-14 12:11:46 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > Thank you. Please find the patch to rename the agreed functions. It would
> > be good to make all consistent instead of applying exception to three
> > functions but seems no con
Hi,
On 2019-05-14 12:11:46 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Thank you. Please find the patch to rename the agreed functions. It would
> be good to make all consistent instead of applying exception to three
> functions but seems no consensus on it. Given table_ api are new, we could
> modify them lea
Hi,
On 2019-05-14 16:27:47 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-May-14, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> > Thank you. Please find the patch to rename the agreed functions. It would
> > be good to make all consistent instead of applying exception to three
> > functions but seems no consensus on it. Giv
On 2019-May-14, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Thank you. Please find the patch to rename the agreed functions. It would
> be good to make all consistent instead of applying exception to three
> functions but seems no consensus on it. Given table_ api are new, we could
> modify them leaving systable_ one
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:05 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Not having consistency is the main aspect I wish to bring to
> attention. Like for some callback functions the comment is
>
> /* see table_insert() for reference about parameters */
> void(*tuple_insert) (Relation rel, TupleTa
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:51 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Ashwin Agrawal
> wrote:
> > Meant to stick the question mark in that email, somehow missed. Yes
> > not planning to spend any time on it if objections. Here is the list
> > of renames I wish to perform.
> >
> >
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Meant to stick the question mark in that email, somehow missed. Yes
> not planning to spend any time on it if objections. Here is the list
> of renames I wish to perform.
>
> Lets start with low hanging ones.
>
> table_rescan -> table_scan_re
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-May-10, Andres Freund wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that this is more churn than I think is useful to
>> tackle after feature freeze, with not sufficient benefits. If others
>> chime in, voting to do this, I'm OK with doing that, but otherwise I
>> think there'
Hi,
On 2019-05-10 16:18:32 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-May-10, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > My personal opinion is that this is more churn than I think is useful to
> > tackle after feature freeze, with not sufficient benefits. If others
> > chime in, voting to do this, I'm OK with doin
On 2019-May-10, Andres Freund wrote:
> My personal opinion is that this is more churn than I think is useful to
> tackle after feature freeze, with not sufficient benefits. If others
> chime in, voting to do this, I'm OK with doing that, but otherwise I
> think there's more important stuff to do.
Hi,
On 2019-05-10 12:43:06 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:51 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-05-10 10:43:44 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > The changes necessary for tableam were already
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:51 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-05-10 10:43:44 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > The changes necessary for tableam were already huge. Changing naming
> > > schemes for functions that are used all ov
Hi,
On 2019-05-10 10:43:44 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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 th
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
Hi,
On 2019-05-08 17:05:07 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:51 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2019-05-08 00:32:22 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > > The general theme for table function names seem to be
> > > "table_". For example table_scan_getnextslot() and its
> > > corr
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:51 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-05-08 00:32:22 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > The general theme for table function names seem to be
> > "table_". For example table_scan_getnextslot() and its
> > corresponding callback scan_getnextslot(). Most of the table
Hi,
On 2019-05-08 00:32:22 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> The general theme for table function names seem to be
> "table_". For example table_scan_getnextslot() and its
> corresponding callback scan_getnextslot(). Most of the table functions and
> callbacks follow mentioned convention except follo
The general theme for table function names seem to be
"table_". 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_f
18 matches
Mail list logo
