> On 14 Jan 2020, at 16:15, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>
>> On 14 Jan 2020, at 15:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>>>>> On 11 Jan 2020, at 03:49, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>>>> One thing I noticed when looking at it is that we now have sha2_openssl.c and
>>>>> openssl_protocol.c in src/common. For easier visual grouping of OpenSSL
>>>>> functionality, it makes sense to me to rename sha2_openssl.c to openssl_sha2.c,
>>>>> but that might just be pointless churn.
>>
>>>> Databases like consistency, and so do I, so no issues from me to do a
>>>> rename of the sha2.c file. That makes sense with the addition of the
>>>> new file.
>>
>>> Done in the attached v3.
>>
>> I'm kind of down on renaming files unless there is a *really* strong
>> reason for it. It makes back-patching more difficult and it makes
>> it much harder to follow the git history. And, seeing that there is
>> also a src/common/sha2.c, it seems to me that renaming sha2_openssl.c
>> will just break consistency in a different way.
>>
>> Maybe the problem is you've got the new file's name backwards.
>> Maybe it should be protocol_openssl.c.
>
> Thats a very good argument, I’ll send a v4 with protocol_openssl.c when back at the computer.
Files renamed to match existing naming convention, the rest of the patch left
unchanged.
cheers ./daniel