On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:30 AM David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 22 August 2018 at 19:08, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > +#define PartitionTupRoutingGetToParentMap(p, i) \
> > +#define PartitionTupRoutingGetToChildMap(p, i) \
> >
> > If the "Get" could be replaced by "Child" and "Parent", respectively,
> > they'd sound more meaningful, imho.
>
> I did that to save 3 chars. I think putting the additional
> Child/Parent in the name is not really required. It's not as if we're
> going to have a ParentToParent or a ChildToChild map, so I thought it
> might be okay to assume that if it's "ToParent", that it's being
> converted from the child and "ToChild" seems safe to assume it's being
> converted from the parent. I can change it though if you feel very
> strongly that what I've got is no good.
I'm not sure exactly what is best here, but it seems to unlikely to me
that somebody is going to read that macro name and think, oh, that
means "get the to-parent map". They are more like be confused by the
juxtaposition of "get" and "to".
I think a better way to shorten the name would be to truncate the
PartitionTupRouting() prefix in some way, e.g. dropping TupRouting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
