pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
6+ messages / 5 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
@ 2019-01-28 15:18 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2019-01-28 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
In the pluggable-storage discussion, there was some talk of renaming
nodes/relation.h to avoid confusion with the new access/relation.h
header. I think this is a fine idea, not only because of that conflict
but because "relation.h" has never made a lot of sense as the file's
name.
After a bit of thought, I propose "pathnodes.h" as the new name.
That fits in with the other major headers in that directory
(primnodes.h, parsenodes.h, plannodes.h, execnodes.h), and it seems
like a reasonable summary of what's in it. Admittedly, Path nodes
as such are barely a third of the file's bulk; but I don't see any
equally pithy way to describe the rest of it, unless something like
planner_data.h, which is pretty unmelodious.
(There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple
files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.)
Barring objections, I'm happy to go make this happen.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
@ 2019-01-28 15:28 Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Amit Langote @ 2019-01-28 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In the pluggable-storage discussion, there was some talk of renaming
> nodes/relation.h to avoid confusion with the new access/relation.h
> header. I think this is a fine idea, not only because of that conflict
> but because "relation.h" has never made a lot of sense as the file's
> name.
>
> After a bit of thought, I propose "pathnodes.h" as the new name.
> That fits in with the other major headers in that directory
> (primnodes.h, parsenodes.h, plannodes.h, execnodes.h), and it seems
> like a reasonable summary of what's in it. Admittedly, Path nodes
> as such are barely a third of the file's bulk; but I don't see any
> equally pithy way to describe the rest of it, unless something like
> planner_data.h, which is pretty unmelodious.
optnodes.h, as in optimization-related nodes? I like pathnodes.h too though.
Thanks,
Amit
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
@ 2019-01-28 16:49 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2019-01-28 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In the pluggable-storage discussion, there was some talk of renaming
> nodes/relation.h to avoid confusion with the new access/relation.h
> header. I think this is a fine idea, not only because of that conflict
> but because "relation.h" has never made a lot of sense as the file's
> name.
+1.
> After a bit of thought, I propose "pathnodes.h" as the new name.
> That fits in with the other major headers in that directory
> (primnodes.h, parsenodes.h, plannodes.h, execnodes.h), and it seems
> like a reasonable summary of what's in it. Admittedly, Path nodes
> as such are barely a third of the file's bulk; but I don't see any
> equally pithy way to describe the rest of it, unless something like
> planner_data.h, which is pretty unmelodious.
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we've got now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
@ 2019-01-28 19:47 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2019-01-28 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
On 2019-Jan-28, Tom Lane wrote:
> (There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple
> files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.)
Hmm, nodes/relation.h includes lots of other files and is widely
included. If we can split it usefully, I vote for that. However, I
failed to find any concrete proposal for doing that. I don't have one
ATM but I'd like to keep the door open for it happening at some point.
I do like planner/pathnodes.h as a name, FWIW.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
@ 2019-01-29 15:31 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2019-01-29 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple
>> files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.)
> Hmm, nodes/relation.h includes lots of other files and is widely
> included.
Yup, that's why I'm trying to reduce the number of files that include it,
over in the other thread.
> If we can split it usefully, I vote for that. However, I
> failed to find any concrete proposal for doing that. I don't have one
> ATM but I'd like to keep the door open for it happening at some point.
The door's always open, of course, but I don't see any point in waiting
around for a hypothetical redesign.
> I do like planner/pathnodes.h as a name, FWIW.
Yeah, I think I'll go with pathnodes.h. We'd probably keep using that
for the Path node typedefs themselves, even if somebody comes up with
a design for splitting out other things.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
@ 2019-01-29 16:51 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andres Freund @ 2019-01-29 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Hi,
On 2019-01-29 10:31:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-Jan-28, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I do like planner/pathnodes.h as a name, FWIW.
>
> Yeah, I think I'll go with pathnodes.h. We'd probably keep using that
> for the Path node typedefs themselves, even if somebody comes up with
> a design for splitting out other things.
+1
FWIW, I can live with the #ifndef, #define, typedef .. #endif thing, I
just don't think it's pretty.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-01-29 16:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-01-28 15:18 Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2019-01-28 15:28 ` Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 16:49 ` Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 19:47 ` Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
2019-01-29 15:31 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2019-01-29 16:51 ` Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox