| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tristan Partin <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech> |
| Cc: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions |
| Date: | 2023-06-15 23:02:05 |
| Message-ID: | ZIuYbSpFmR9aONy0@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:13:57AM -0500, Tristan Partin wrote:
> What's the Postgres policy on the following?
>
> for (int i = 0; ...)
> for (i = 0; ...)
>
> You are using 2 different patterns in WaitEventShmemInit() and
> InitializeExtensionWaitEventTranches().
C99 style is OK since v12, so the style of the patch is fine. The
older style has no urgent need to change, either. One argument to let
the code as-is is that it could generate backpatching conflicts, while
it does not hurt as it stands. This also means that bug fixes that
need to be applied down to 12 would be able to use C99 declarations
freely without some of the buildfarm animals running REL_11_STABLE
complaining. I have fallen into this trap recently, actually. See
dbd25dd.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-06-15 23:57:00 | Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-06-15 22:41:51 | Re: subscription/033_run_as_table_owner is not listed in the meson.build |