On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 11:11 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > The difference between a handle and a reference is useful right now, to have > some separation between the functions that can be called by anyone (taking a > PgAioHandleRef) and only by the issuer (PgAioHandle). That might better be > solved by having a PgAioHandleIssuerRef ref or something.
To me, those names don't convey that. I would perhaps call the thing that supports issuer-only operations a "PgAio" and the thing other people can use a "PgAioHandle". Or "PgAioRequest" and "PgAioHandle" or something like that. With PgAioHandleRef, IMHO you've got two words that both imply a layer of indirection -- "handle" and "ref" -- which doesn't seem quite as nice, because then the other thing -- "PgAioHandle" still sort of implies one layer of indirection and the whole thing seems a bit less clear. (I say all of this having looked at nothing, so feel free to ignore me if that doesn't sound coherent.) > > REAPED feels like a bad name. It sounds like a later stage than COMPLETED, > > but it's actually vice versa. > > What would you call having gotten "completion notifications" from the kernel, > but not having processed them? The Linux kernel calls those zombie processes, so we could call it a ZOMBIE state, but that seems like it might be a bit of inside baseball. I do agree with Heikki that REAPED sounds later than COMPLETED, because you reap zombie processes by collecting their exit status. Maybe you could have AHS_COMPLETE or AHS_IO_COMPLETE for the state where the I/O is done but there's still completion-related work to be done, and then the other state could be AHS_DONE or AHS_FINISHED or AHS_FINAL or AHS_REAPED or something. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
