Robert Haas escribió:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> That seems more mess than just keeping that function in postmaster.c.
> >> I agree with moving the other one.
> > Please find attached a patch for that can be applied on master branch.
> > do_start_bgworker is renamed to StartBackgroundWorker and moved to
> > bgworker.c. At the same time, bgworker_quickdie, bgworker_die and
> > bgworker_sigusr1_handler are moved to bgworker.c as they are used in
> > do_start_bgworker.
>
> This particular formulation doesn't seem quite good to me, because
> we'd end up with a function called StartBackgroundWorker() and another
> called StartOneBackgroundWorker() doing related but different things.
> Maybe we can name things a bit better?
Yeah, we also have start_bgworker(). I agree that we should rename
things so that they make as much sense as possible.
In the current code, we have this:
StartOneBackgroundWorker() in postmaster.c start_bgworker() in postmaster.c do_start_bgworker() in
postmaster.c
With this patch we would have
StartOneBackgroundWorker() in postmaster.c start_bgworker() in postmaster.c StartBackgroundWorker() in
bgworker.c
I think we should rename to something like this:
maybe_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c do_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c StartBackgroundWorker()
inbgworker.c
(I would also rename the functions in 9.3 to avoid inconsistency). Not
wedded to those particular names, but (1) I would add the "maybe" prefix
because that's what that function does; and (2) it seems to me that
stuff in bgworker.c tend to use CamelCaseNaming and postmaster.c uses
names_with_stuffed_underscores.
(My convention tends to be that "internal" stuff uses underscores while
exposed APIs use CamelCase. I probably fail to do it really
consistently.)
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
