On 2019-01-18 14:19:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-01-16 08:20:37 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Unless somebody comes up with a better suggestion I'm planning to press
> ahead with this one. It's large enough to be a bit of a pain to maintain
> over time... I'm absolutely not wedded to access/relation.h, so I'm
> happy with another good suggestion, or somebody revising it subsequently.
And pushed. If somebody is interested in renaming/splitting nodes/relation.h, I
think that'd be good, but if not, it's also not terrible.
- Andres
