From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | abbas(dot)butt(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql coding conventions |
Date: | 2008-09-11 11:42:05 |
Message-ID: | 16342.1221133325@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Abbas <abbas(dot)butt(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> While writing code or reviewing a path are we supposed to consider the
>> camel cased names correct or the under-score separated names correct?
> Some parts of the code use the two to distinguish between functions local to
> that module and functions that are part of the public api. In those cases
> functions with capitals are part of the public api of the module and lower
> case functions are internal functions or utility functions. Except for the
> modules where it's the reverse...
Right --- there are enough different naming styles in the codebase now
that it seems pretty much hopeless to expect it ever to be just one style.
I think the most we can hope for now is "try to make your patch
consistent with nearby code". Which is definitely a point worth
considering for reviewers --- just don't expect that there's one true style.
> And actually looking around I can't find any good examples of this
> where there aren't exceptions. I don't like the idea of a massive
> cleanup patch for this but if someone's doing major surgery on a
> module it could be worth fixing up names in that module to be
> consistent at the same time.
If it's a total rewrite anyway, then of course you could use whatever
names you like. But for incremental changes I would vote against
changing names that aren't directly being touched by the patch. What
that would mainly accomplish is to cause fits for the poor sods who have
to back-patch bug fixes. I still routinely curse our decision to alter
pg_indent's comment-wrapping rules around 8.1, because it means that no
back-patch ever applies cleanly across the 8.1/8.2 boundary.
A contrary point here is that if you are changing a function's API,
or the meaning of a field, etc, it's often a good idea to intentionally
rename it; that guarantees that you won't miss fixing any references
to it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-09-11 11:54:32 | Re: New FSM patch |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-09-11 11:28:45 | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code |