Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5
Date
Msg-id 4313.1469717160@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> 3. Several source comments in pqcomm.c have not been updated.
>     Some comments still use the old function name like pq_putmessage().

> Attached patch fixes the above issues.

I dunno, this seems like it's doubling down on some extremely poor
decisions.  Why is it that you now have to flip a coin to guess whether
the prefix is pq_ or socket_ for functions in this module?  I would
rather see that renaming reverted.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: LWLocks in DSM memory
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: BRIN vs. HOT