Somehow I missed this thread ...
On 06/14/2018 02:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jun-14, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
2.
+/*
+ * Structure used to represent value to be used when the attribute is not
+ * present at all in a tuple, i.e. when the column was created after the
tuple
+ */
+
+typedef struct attrMissing
+{
+ bool ammissingPresent; /* true if non-NULL missing value exists
*/
+ Datum ammissing; /* value when attribute is missing */
+} AttrMissing;
+
As nobody responded, it seems that the variable naming pointed above
is okay, but in any case, I think we should fix cosmetic changes
proposed. I will commit the patch unless you or someone thinks that
we should change the name of the variable.
We used to use prefixes for common struct members names to help
disambiguate across members that would otherwise have identical names in
different structs. Our convention was to use _ as a separator. This
convention has been partially lost, but seems we can use it to good
effect here, by renaming ammissingPresent to am_present and ammissing to
am_missing (I would go as far as suggesting am_default or am_substitute
or something like that).
am_present and am_value perhaps? I'm not dogmatic about it.
BTW I think "the result stored" is correct English.
Yes, it certainly is.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
