Re: rename es_epq_active to es_epqstate

On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 9:43 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)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

Ok, let's keep it as is, thanks for the explanation.

--
Regards
Junwang Zhao