From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <efujita(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: naming of async_mode parameter |
Date: | 2021-05-14 08:05:28 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK16iMTn4N0BnBV1OZ+AdH_5ojG-4Z+q+HqxeAy7Vo52eNw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2021-05-14 08:11:31 | Re: View invoker privileges |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-05-14 07:16:05 | Re: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN() |