From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fix typo in reorderbuffer.c |
Date: | 2021-02-02 05:28:54 |
Message-ID: | YBjjFlAiMs+VP6LQ@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 07:15:41AM +0000, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> I agree that it’s better to have a common way, but some different
> style of combocid follow the variable or functionname[1].
> We may need to change the var name or function name too.
>
> [1]:
> void
> SerializeComboCIDState(Size maxsize, char *start_address)
>
> static int usedComboCids = 0; /* number of elements in comboCids */
Yes, the context matters a lot. In the case you are quoting, it makes
sense to refer to the name of the variable in the comment. If the
term is used in a comment with a more generic purpose, we should then
use a generic term.
> Personally , I prefer "combocids".
> But do you think we can change that in a separate patch apart from this typo patch ?
What about "Combo CID(s)", for Combo command ID? README.parallel uses
this term for example.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | japin | 2021-02-02 05:37:31 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-02-02 05:19:01 | Re: Typo in tablesync comment |