On 7 January 2016 at 05:24, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Here procArrayGroupXid sounds like Xid at group level, how about >> >> > procArrayGroupMemberXid? >> >> > Find the patch with renamed variables for PGProc >> >> > (rename_pgproc_variables_v1.patch) attached with mail. >> >> >> >> I sort of hate to make these member names any longer, but I wonder if >> >> we should make it procArrayGroupClearXid etc. >> > >> > If we go by this suggestion, then the name will look like: >> > PGProc >> > { >> > .. >> > bool procArrayGroupClearXid, pg_atomic_uint32 >> > procArrayGroupNextClearXid, >> > TransactionId procArrayGroupLatestXid; >> > .. >> > >> > PROC_HDR >> > { >> > .. >> > pg_atomic_uint32 procArrayGroupFirstClearXid; >> > .. >> > } >> > >> > I think whatever I sent in last patch were better. It seems to me it is >> > better to add some comments before variable names, so that anybody >> > referring them can understand better and I have added comments in >> > attached patch rename_pgproc_variables_v2.patch to explain the same. >> >> Well, I don't know. Anybody else have an opinion? >> > > It seems that either people don't have any opinion on this matter or they > are okay with either of the naming conventions being discussed. I think > specifying Member after procArrayGroup can help distinguishing which > variables are specific to the whole group and which are specific to a > particular member. I think that will be helpful for other places as well > if we use this technique to improve performance. Let me know what > you think about the same. > > I have verified that previous patches can be applied cleanly and passes > make check-world. To avoid confusion, I am attaching the latest > patches with this mail.
Patches still apply 1 month later. I don't really have an opinion on the variable naming. I guess they only need making longer if there's going to be some confusion about what they're for, but I'm guessing it's not a blocker here. Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers