From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: lwlocknames.h beautification attempt |
Date: | 2025-03-02 06:26:07 |
Message-ID: | 3128012.1740896767@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> writes:
> I propose the following change to the generation script,
> generate-lwlocknames.pl
> ...
> which produces the lock names in this format
> #define ShmemIndexLock (&MainLWLockArray[1].lock)
> #define OidGenLock (&MainLWLockArray[2].lock)
> #define XidGenLock (&MainLWLockArray[3].lock)
> #define ProcArrayLock (&MainLWLockArray[4].lock)
> #define SInvalReadLock (&MainLWLockArray[5].lock)
This looks reasonably in line with project style ...
> Yet another format, which I prefer, can be achieved by right-aligning the
> lock names.
> #define ShmemIndexLock (&MainLWLockArray[1].lock)
> #define OidGenLock (&MainLWLockArray[2].lock)
> #define XidGenLock (&MainLWLockArray[3].lock)
> #define ProcArrayLock (&MainLWLockArray[4].lock)
> #define SInvalReadLock (&MainLWLockArray[5].lock)
... but that doesn't. I challenge you to provide even one example
of that layout in our source tree, or to explain why it's better.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2025-03-02 06:35:12 | Re: lwlocknames.h beautification attempt |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2025-03-02 06:09:47 | lwlocknames.h beautification attempt |