Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashwin Agrawal
Subject Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c?
Date
Msg-id CALfoeitODkrP1rwe=i0Bg++aTdsgOuTECOYQ6ks+Aw+uznW39g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:34 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
Hi all,

I was working on some stuff for table AMs, and I got to wonder it we
had better rename amapi.h to indexam.h and amapi.c to indexam.c, so as
things are more consistent with table AM.  It is a bit annoying to
name the files dedicated to index AMs with what looks like now a too
generic name.  That would require switching a couple of header files
for existing module developers, which is always annoying, but the move
makes sense thinking long-term?

Any thoughts?

I had raised the same earlier and [1] has response from Andres, which was "We probably should rename it, but not in 12..."

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190508215135.4eljnhnle5xp3jwb%40alap3.anarazel.de

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c?
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: relpages of btree indexes are not truncating even after deletingall the tuples from table and doing vacuum