On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/14/2018 02:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> We used to use prefixes for common struct members names to help
>>> disambiguate across members that would otherwise have identical names in
>>> different structs. Our convention was to use _ as a separator. This
>>> convention has been partially lost, but seems we can use it to good
>>> effect here, by renaming ammissingPresent to am_present and ammissing to
>>> am_missing (I would go as far as suggesting am_default or am_substitute
>>> or something like that).
>>
>> am_present and am_value perhaps? I'm not dogmatic about it.
>>
>
> +1. Attached patch changed the names as per suggestion.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW I think "the result stored" is correct English.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it certainly is.
>>
>
> Okay.
>
> How about attached?
>
Andrew, Alvaro, do you think we can go ahead with above naming
suggestions or do we want to brainstorm more on it?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com