Rename some rel truncation related constants at the top of vacuumlazy.c

Started by Peter Geogheganover 3 years ago3 messageshackers
Jump to latest

I propose to rename some of the rel truncation related constants at
the top of vacuumlazy.c, per the attached patch. The patch
consolidates related constants into a single block/grouping, and
imposes a uniform naming scheme.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Attachments:

0001-vacuumlazy.c-rename-rel-truncation-constants.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-vacuumlazy.c-rename-rel-truncation-constants.patchDownload+15-23
#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Peter Geoghegan (#1)
Re: Rename some rel truncation related constants at the top of vacuumlazy.c

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:

I propose to rename some of the rel truncation related constants at
the top of vacuumlazy.c, per the attached patch. The patch
consolidates related constants into a single block/grouping, and
imposes a uniform naming scheme.

Um ... you seem to have removed some useful comments?

Personally I wouldn't do this, as I don't think the renaming
brings much benefit, and it will create a hazard for back-patching
any fixes that might be needed in that code. I'm not hugely upset
about it, but that's the way I'd vote if asked.

regards, tom lane

In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: Rename some rel truncation related constants at the top of vacuumlazy.c

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Um ... you seem to have removed some useful comments?

I don't think that the stuff about making them into a GUC is useful myself.

Personally I wouldn't do this, as I don't think the renaming
brings much benefit, and it will create a hazard for back-patching
any fixes that might be needed in that code. I'm not hugely upset
about it, but that's the way I'd vote if asked.

In that case I withdraw the patch.

FWIW I wrote the patch during the course of work on new feature
development. A patch that added a couple of similar constants a bit
further down. Seemed neater this way, but it's certainly not worth
arguing over.

--
Peter Geoghegan