On 2016-08-18 16:11:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On August 17, 2016 8:15:56 PM PDT, Michael Paquier
> > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>+ { /* pg_ctl command w path, properly quoted */
> >>+ PQExpBuffer pg_ctl_path = createPQExpBuffer();
> >>+ printfPQExpBuffer(pg_ctl_path, "%s%spg_ctl",
> >>+ bin_dir,
> >>+ (strlen(bin_dir) > 0) ? DIR_SEP : ""
> >>+ );
> >>+ appendShellString(start_db_cmd, pg_ctl_path->data);
> >>+ destroyPQExpBuffer(pg_ctl_path);
> >>+ }
> >>
> >>This is not really project-style to have an independent block. Usually
> >>those are controlled by for, while or if.
> >
> > Besides the comment positioning I'd not say that that is against the usual
> > style, there's a number of such blocks already. Don't think it's
> > necessarily needed here though...
>
> Really? I'd remove such blocks before committing anything, or ask for
> them to be removed, unless there were some special reason for having
> them.
Well, reducing the scope of variables *can* be such a reason, no? As I
said, I don't see any reason here, but in general, it's imo a reasonable
tool on one's belt.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
