Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 7:37 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Sep-27, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > 3. get_local_synced_slot_names
> >
> > + for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
> > + {
> > + ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
> > +
> > + /* Check if it is logical synchronized slot */
> > + if (s->in_use && SlotIsLogical(s) && s->data.synced)
> > + {
> > + for (int j = 0; j < MySlotSyncWorker->dbcount; j++)
> > + {
> >
> > Loop variables are not declared in the common PG code way.
>
> Note that since we added C99 as a mandatory requirement for compilers in
> commit d9dd406fe281, we've been using declarations in loop initializers
> (see 143290efd079). We have almost 500 occurrences of this already.
> Older code, obviously, does not use them, but that's no reason not to
> introduce them in new code. I think they make the code a bit leaner, so
> I suggest to use these liberally.
>

I also prefer the C99 style, but I had misunderstood there was still a
convention to keep using the old style for code consistency (e.g. many
new patches I see still seem to use the old style).

Thanks for confirming that C99 loop variables are fine for any new code.

@Shveta/Ajin - please ignore/revert all my old review comments about this point.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.