| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: shadow variables - pg15 edition |
| Date: | 2022-08-18 03:42:27 |
| Message-ID: | 2230209.1660794147@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> A lot of the changes proposed here update the code so as the same
> variable gets used across more code paths by removing declarations,
> but we have two variables defined because both are aimed to be used in
> a different context (see AttachPartitionEnsureIndexes() in tablecmds.c
> for example).
> Wouldn't it be a saner approach in a lot of cases to rename the
> shadowed variables (aka the ones getting removed in your patches) and
> keep them local to the code paths where we use them?
Yeah. I do not think a patch of this sort has any business changing
the scopes of variables. That moves it out of "cosmetic cleanup"
and into "hm, I wonder if this introduces any bugs". Most hackers
are going to decide that they have better ways to spend their time
than doing that level of analysis for a very noncritical patch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-08-18 03:44:05 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2022-08-18 03:35:15 | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration |