Hi,
On 2023-08-12 12:29:05 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Commit 31966b15 invented a way for functions dealing with relation
> extension to accept a Relation in online code and an SMgrRelation in
> recovery code (instead of using the earlier FakeRelcacheEntry
> concept). It seems highly likely that future new bufmgr.c interfaces
> will face the same problem, and need to do something similar. Let's
> generalise the names so that each interface doesn't have to re-invent
> the wheel? ExtendedBufferWhat is also just not a beautiful name. How
> about BufferedObjectSelector? That name leads to macros BOS_SMGR()
> and BOS_REL(). Could also be BufMgrObject/BMO, ... etc etc.
I like the idea of generalizing it. I somehow don't quite like BOS*, but I
can't really put into words why, so...
> This is from a patch-set that I'm about to propose for 17, which needs
> one of these too, hence desire to generalise. But if we rename them
> in 17, then AM authors, who are likely to discover and make use of
> this interface, would have to use different names for 16 and 17.
Makes sense to me.
Greetings,
Andres Freund