On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 8:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 6:22 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
> > <alvherre@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