Re: naming of async_mode parameter

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 1:05 AM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:23 AM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
> > I was looking at
> > Fix EXPLAIN ANALYZE for async-capable nodes.
>
> Thanks for that!
>
> > which adds the following parameter / field:
> >
> > + bool async_mode; /* true if node is in async mode */
> >
> > async_mode implies an enum: {sync, async}
> > Since there are only two values, the data type is bool. I think it
> should be named is_async.
>
> By async_mode, I mean "is in async mode?", as commented above. I
> thought the naming is_in_async_mode would be a bit long, so I
> shortened it to async_mode. IIUC, I think another example in our
> codebase would be the hash_spill_mode parameter in the AggState
> struct. So I think async_mode would be acceptable IMO.
>
> Best regards,
> Etsuro Fujita
>

Hi,
Searching postgres codebase reveals the following (partial) examples:

bool is_varlena
bool is_leaf

I think these are more intuitive.

If you think is_in_async_mode is too long, how about naming the parameter
is_async ?

If you agree, I can send out a patch.

Cheers