Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-03-25 12:33:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think it's wise to think of these things as just "slots";
>> that name is way too generic. They are "tuple slots", and so that
>> word has to stay in the relevant function names.
> Hm. But we already have slot_{getsomeattrs, getallattrs, attisnull,
> getattr, getsysattr}. But perhaps the att in there is enough addiitional
> information?
I don't claim to be entirely innocent in this matter ;-)
If we're going to rename stuff in this area without concern for avoiding
inessential code churn, then those are valid targets as well.
BTW, maybe it's worth drawing a naming distinction between
slot-type-specific and slot-type-independent functions?
(I assume there are still some of the latter.)
regards, tom lane
