On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Here procArrayGroupXid sounds like Xid at group level, how about >> > procArrayGroupMemberXid? >> > Find the patch with renamed variables for PGProc >> > (rename_pgproc_variables_v1.patch) attached with mail. >> >> I sort of hate to make these member names any longer, but I wonder if >> we should make it procArrayGroupClearXid etc. > > If we go by this suggestion, then the name will look like: > PGProc > { > .. > bool procArrayGroupClearXid, pg_atomic_uint32 procArrayGroupNextClearXid, > TransactionId procArrayGroupLatestXid; > .. > > PROC_HDR > { > .. > pg_atomic_uint32 procArrayGroupFirstClearXid; > .. > } > > I think whatever I sent in last patch were better. It seems to me it is > better to add some comments before variable names, so that anybody > referring them can understand better and I have added comments in > attached patch rename_pgproc_variables_v2.patch to explain the same.
Well, I don't know. Anybody else have an opinion?
It seems that either people don't have any opinion on this matter or they
are okay with either of the naming conventions being discussed. I think
specifying Member after procArrayGroup can help distinguishing which
variables are specific to the whole group and which are specific to a
particular member. I think that will be helpful for other places as well
if we use this technique to improve performance. Let me know what
you think about the same.
I have verified that previous patches can be applied cleanly and passes
make check-world. To avoid confusion, I am attaching the latest