Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
Date
Msg-id 7719.1548688728@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
In the pluggable-storage discussion, there was some talk of renaming
nodes/relation.h to avoid confusion with the new access/relation.h
header.  I think this is a fine idea, not only because of that conflict
but because "relation.h" has never made a lot of sense as the file's
name.

After a bit of thought, I propose "pathnodes.h" as the new name.
That fits in with the other major headers in that directory
(primnodes.h, parsenodes.h, plannodes.h, execnodes.h), and it seems
like a reasonable summary of what's in it.  Admittedly, Path nodes
as such are barely a third of the file's bulk; but I don't see any
equally pithy way to describe the rest of it, unless something like
planner_data.h, which is pretty unmelodious.

(There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple
files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.)

Barring objections, I'm happy to go make this happen.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
Next
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g