On January 16, 2019 8:08:09 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:23 PM Haribabu Kommi
><kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> access/relation.[c|h] name is fine. Or how about access/rel.[c|h],
>> because nodes/relation.h is related to planner. utils/rel.h is some
>how
>> related to relation caches.
>
>Insofar as we can reasonably do so, I'd rather pick unique names for
>header files. I know that there's no law that rules out having both
>nodes/relation.h and access/relation.h, or likewise utils/rel.h and
>access/rel.h; the computer won't be confused. But it might create
>some confusion among human beings, so my vote is for avoiding that
>sort of thing if we can.
I prefer that too - if the new name isn't worse enough to make it hard to remember. I'd welcome suggestions that don't
conflict...
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
