| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
| Date: | 2019-01-16 17:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | 17173.1547661301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> It just occured to me that the style FSM_LOCAL_MAP_EXISTS seems more
> common for macros that refer to constants, and FSMLocalMapExists for
> expressions, but I've only seen a small amount of the code base. Do we
> have a style preference here, or is it more a matter of matching the
> surrounding code?
I believe there's a pretty longstanding tradition in C coding to use
all-caps names for macros representing constants. Some people think
that goes for all macros period, but I'm not on board with that for
function-like macros.
Different parts of the PG code base make different choices between
camel-case and underscore-separation for multiword function names.
For that, I'd say match the style of nearby code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-16 17:59:31 | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-16 17:49:30 | Re: parseCheckAggregates vs. assign_query_collations |