Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c?
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOBaU_bcmNML9HJMKATv5kkq99CCJOJkuhUHvXSJWcLj8hok8w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 3:57 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:28:36PM -0800, Ashwin Agrawal wrote: > > I had raised the same earlier and [1] has response from Andres, which was > > "We probably should rename it, but not in 12..." > > > > [1] > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190508215135.4eljnhnle5xp3jwb%40alap3.anarazel.de > > Okay, glad to see that this has been mentioned. So let's do some > renaming for v13 then. I have studied first if we had better remove > amapi.c, then move amvalidate() to amvalidate.c and the handler lookup > routine to indexam.c as it already exists, but keeping things ordered > as they are makes sense to limit spreading too much dependencies with > the syscache mainly, so instead the attached patch does the following > changes: > - amapi.h -> indexam.h > - amapi.c -> indexamapi.c. Here we have an equivalent in access/table/ > as tableamapi.c. > - amvalidate.c -> indexamvalidate.c > - amvalidate.h -> indexamvalidate.h > - genam.c -> indexgenam.c > > Please note that we have also amcmds.c and amcmds.c in the code, but > the former could be extended to have utilities for table AMs, and the > latter applies to both, so they are better left untouched in my > opinion. Looks good to me. There are still references to amapi.c in various .po files, but those should rather be taken care of with the next update-po cycle right?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: