Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin
| От | Peter Eisentraut |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | ab3f573e-8218-4665-be62-3bb8ae0055f7@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: RepOrigin vs. replorigin
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 27.01.26 12:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 2:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> While reading the code in origin.c, I found the inconsistent use of
>> RepOrigin and replorigin (with an 'l') quite confusing -- especially
>> when trying to determine names for new functions or variables. For
>> instance,
>>
>> - RepOriginId
>> - InvalidRepOriginId
>>
>> - RM_REPLORIGIN_ID
>> - XLOG_REPLORIGIN_{SET|DROP}
>> - replorigin_session_origin
>> - replorigin_session_xxx() functions
>>
>> Is there a conventional rule for choosing one over the other depending
>> on context? Or should we consider unifying these naming conventions?"
>>
>
> AFAICS, most places use replorigin. So, +1 to unify the naming by
> adding 'l' to places where it is not there unless someone sees a
> theory/reason to keep them different.
agreed
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: