From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Small fix on query_id_enabled |
Date: | 2024-02-10 01:19:15 |
Message-ID: | ZcbPEzo3hjSgl8S2@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:37:23PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:38:23PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>> Also, I think the name is a bit confusing for the same reason, that is,
>> query_id_enabled may be false even when query id is computed in fact.
>>
>> Actually, this does not matter because we use IsQueryIdEnabled to check
>> if query id is enabled, instead of referring to a global variable
>> (query_id_enabled or compute_query_id). But, just for making a code a bit
>> more readable, how about renaming this to query_id_required which seems to
>> stand for the meaning more correctly?
>
> -1 for renaming to avoid breaking extensions that might access it. We should
> simply document for compute_query_id and query_id_enabled declaration that one
> should instead use IsQueryIdEnabled() if they're interested in whether the core
> queryid are computed or not.
Agreed. A renaming would involve more pain than gain. Improving the
comments around how to all that would be good enough, my 2c.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Soumyadeep Chakraborty | 2024-02-10 01:56:19 | Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-02-10 01:02:25 | Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations |