On 2/18/21 4:46 PM, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in
> which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named
> below, I have applied the suggestions.
>
Thanks.
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think
>> we do this in our codebase.
>
> I saw this being used in (re)index progress reporting, that's where I
> took inspiration from. It has been fixed in the attached version.
>
Hmmm, good point. I haven't looked at the other places reporting
progress and I only ever saw this pattern in old code. I kinda dislike
these blocks, but admittedly that's rather subjective view. So if other
similar places do this when reporting progress, this probably should
too. What's your opinion on this?
>> - I fir the "io_target" name misleading, because in some cases it's
>> actually the *source*.
>
> Yes, I was also not quite happy with this, but couldn't find a better
> one at the point of writing the initial patchset. Would
> "io_operations", "io_port", "operates_through" or "through" maybe be
> better?
>
No idea. Let's see if someone has a better proposal ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company