Re: RFC: ExecNodeExtender

2013/6/6 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>> Also, I don't think ExecNodeExtender is not a good naming, because it
>> is a bit long and
>> abbreviation (ENE?) is hard to imagine the feature. Please give this
>> feature a cool and
>> well understandable name.
>
> I agree that "Extender" doesn't sound right.  "Extension" would
> probably be the right part of speech, but that has multiple meanings
> that might confuse the issue.  (Does CREATE EXTENSION take the
> relation extension lock?  And don't forget PostgreSQL extensions to
> the SQL standard!)
>
> I'm wondering if we ought to use something like "Custom" instead, so
> that we'd end up with ExecInitCustom(), ExecCustom(), ExecEndCustom().
>  I think that would make it more clear to the casual reader that this
> is a hook for user-defined code.
>
> Other bike-shedding?
>
Thanks for your suggestion. I also prefer the naming with "Custom" and
relevant function names, much rather than "Extender".
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>