| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?) |
| Date: | 2022-09-27 08:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20220927.172427.467118514018439476.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This commit introduced BackupState struct. The comment of
do_pg_backup_start says that:
> * It fills in backup_state with the information required for the backup,
And the parameters are:
> do_pg_backup_start(const char *backupidstr, bool fast, List **tablespaces,
> BackupState *state, StringInfo tblspcmapfile)
So backup_state is different from both the type BackupState and the
parameter state. I find it annoying. Don't we either rename the
parameter or fix the comment?
The parameter "state" sounds a bit too generic. So I prefer to rename
the parameter to backup_state, as the attached.
What do you think about this?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| rename_param_of_po_pg_backup_start.txt | text/plain | 4.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-27 08:32:26 | Re: Avoid memory leaks during base backups |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-27 08:18:23 | Re: Allow foreign keys to reference a superset of unique columns |