On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:14:15PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> I wonder if we can keep the same naming style to make the new
> function name like next_pow2_64()?
I don't think that this would be a good idea to have new routines
published in pg_bitutils.h with names inconsistent with the existing
one. next_pow2_long() and next_pow2_int() are now local to
dynahash.c, so we don't really have to follow their naming pattern.
It would be more important to me to choose a new name, rather in line
with the other ones.
After sleeping on it, I am not sure what to do with these routines. I
don't deny that more refactoring can be done. However, all that can
also happen outside the long -> int64 switch I am suggesting.
Any comments from others?
--
Michael
