On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> OK. Now it's ds_hash_table.{c,h}, where "ds" stands for "dynamic
> shared". Better? If we were to do other data structures in DSA
> memory they could follow that style: ds_red_black_tree.c, ds_vector.c,
> ds_deque.c etc and their identifier prefix would be drbt_, dv_, dd_
> etc.
>
> Do you want to see a separate patch to rename dsa.c? Got a better
> name? You could have spoken up earlier :-) It does sound like a bit
> like the thing from crypto or perhaps a scary secret government
> department.
I doubt that we really want to have accessor functions with names like
dynamic_shared_hash_table_insert or ds_hash_table_insert. Long names
are fine, even desirable, for APIs that aren't too widely used,
because they're relatively self-documenting, but a 30-character
function name gets annoying in a hurry if you have to call it very
often, and this is intended to be reusable for other things that want
a dynamic shared memory hash table. I think we should (a) pick some
reasonably short prefix for all the function names, like dht or dsht
or ds_hash, but not ds_hash_table or dynamic_shared_hash_table and (b)
also use that prefix as the name for the .c and .h files.
Right now, we've got a situation where the most widely-used hash table
implementation uses dynahash.c for the code, hsearch.h for the
interface, and "hash" as the prefix for the names, and that's really
hard to remember. I think having a consistent naming scheme
throughout would be a lot better.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
