Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 16:06:15 -0800
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove BufFile's isTemp flag.
Message-ID: <20171120000615.36f32ayw67xyy3h6@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <E1eFVyl-0008J1-RO@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <23339.1510887494@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20171117031149.hslkxis732hkjuog@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <24110.1510888651@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <32216.1510935834@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20171117175811.qgrs75pgyhl42kgr@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAEepm=38U=A0Ftk3XV=yqHXubiCoG5mr6wxQpgxTnPVo5tJL=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <31532.1511128836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31532.1511128836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

On 2017-11-19 17:00:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >> On 2017-11-17 11:23:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I wonder whether we should then rename BufFileCreateTemp to just
> >>> BufFileCreate, since it's no longer possible to have a BufFile that
> >>> isn't temp.
> 
> > Here's a patch that does those things.  I'm slightly surprised by the
> > renaming suggestion though, because it means that an extension that
> > uses BufFile will need to know how to select the v10 and v11 function
> > name as appropriate.  Would you backpatch redirect support for the new
> > name to older versions?
> 
> No, but if you're concerned about it, we could maintain API compatibility
> for extensions with something like
> 
> #define BufFileCreateTemp(interXact) BufFileCreate(interXact)

I don't really see a point in doing this renaming in the first
place. It's not like the Temp suffix has become inaccurate. I'd perhaps
not add it in the green field, but I don't see a need to change an
existing function name. If anything it seems confusing because you'd
miss something when trivially searching the history / comparing
branches.

Greetings,

Andres Freund