Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?)
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACVbUM9H5aNg8uGBjuTT1aQ39Oa56Z-DniXTJ5rP6oRmFg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?) (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 1:54 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > This commit introduced BackupState struct. The comment of > do_pg_backup_start says that: > > > * It fills in backup_state with the information required for the backup, > > And the parameters are: > > > do_pg_backup_start(const char *backupidstr, bool fast, List **tablespaces, > > BackupState *state, StringInfo tblspcmapfile) > > So backup_state is different from both the type BackupState and the > parameter state. I find it annoying. Don't we either rename the > parameter or fix the comment? > > The parameter "state" sounds a bit too generic. So I prefer to rename > the parameter to backup_state, as the attached. > > What do you think about this? -1 from me. We have the function context and the structure name there to represent that the parameter name 'state' is actually 'backup state'. I don't think we gain anything here. Whenever the BackupState is used away from any function, the variable name backup_state is used, static variable in xlogfuncs.c -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: