| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: pgbench - refactor init functions with buffers | 
| Date: | 2019-10-22 10:00:13 | 
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1910221155310.15559@lancre | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hello Dilip,
> - for (i = 0; i < nbranches * scale; i++)
> + for (int i = 0; i < nbranches * scale; i++)
> ...
> - for (i = 0; i < ntellers * scale; i++)
> + for (int i = 0; i < ntellers * scale; i++)
>  {
>
> I haven't read the complete patch.  But, I have noticed that many
> places you changed the variable declaration from c to c++ style (i.e
> moved the declaration in the for loop).  IMHO, generally in PG, we
> don't follow this convention.  Is there any specific reason to do
> this?
There are many places where it is used now in pg (120 occurrences in 
master, 7 in pgbench). I had a bug recently because of a stupidly reused 
index variable, so I tend to use this now it is admissible, moreover here 
I'm actually doing a refactoring patch, so it seems ok to include that.
-- 
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-10-22 10:11:51 | Re: Ordering of header file inclusion | 
| Previous Message | Devrim Gündüz | 2019-10-22 09:32:53 | v12 pg_basebackup fails against older servers (take two) |