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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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) |