Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> writes:
> ISTM Andres tend to use *es_epq_active* in a boolean way,
> like `if (es_epq_active) then`, but in the code base, all its usages
> follow pattern `if (es_epq_active == NULL) then`, so I propose to
> change es_epq_active to es_epqstate.
While I didn't especially love "es_epq_active" at the time,
I don't see that "es_epqstate" is much of an improvement:
it's an extremely generic name that conveys little information.
And renaming it now, years later, seems to add little except
back-patching hazards. So I'd vote for leaving it alone.
regards, tom lane
