Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> In an attempt to simplify my life I'm submitting this patch that
> restructures the deferred trigger queue. The fundamental change is to
> put all the static variables to hold the deferred triggers in a single
> structure.
Seems reasonable, but I have a stylistic gripe:
> + static DeferredTriggers ts;
I dislike static variables with names as short as that --- they are too
likely to conflict against local variables. (And before you say there's
no problem because a local declaration would mask it, what happens if
you forget the local declaration?)
I suspect you named it this way because you intend to pass it as a
parameter to all these routines later, and you're trying to avoid
one pass of editing when you add "DeferredTriggers ts" to the parameter
lists. I would suggest doing that now and including it in the patch.
Whether you are intending that or not, please use a better name for
the static variable.
regards, tom lane