Re: Acceptable/Best formatting of callbacks (for pluggable storage)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Acceptable/Best formatting of callbacks (for pluggable storage)
Date: 2019-01-11 17:58:32
Message-ID: 20190111175832.ryyup5mci6atc3yy@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-01-11 09:42:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > The pluggable storage patchset has a large struct full of callbacks, and
> > a bunch of wrapper functions for calling those callbacks. While
> > starting to polish the patchset, I tried to make the formatting nice.
> > ...
> > So, putting the parameter list, both in use and declaration, entirely
> > into a new line yields decent formatting with pgindent. But it's kinda
> > weird. I can't really come up with a better alternative, and after a
> > few minutes it looks pretty reasonable.
>
> > Comments? Better alternatives?
>
> Use shorter method names? This sounds like an ugly workaround for
> a carpal-tunnel-syndrome-inducing design.

I'm confused. What did I write about that has unreasonably long names?
And if you're referring to the wider design, that all seems fairly
fundamental to something needing callbacks - not exactly a first in
postgres.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-01-11 18:04:51 Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-01-11 17:56:42 Re: Acceptable/Best formatting of callbacks (for pluggable storage)