On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 5:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Again, I was looking at this at the level of the .h file (in this case
> nodeIncrementalSort.h). It never occurred to me to consider other
> *InitializeWorker() functions.
>
> Offhand I think that we should change all of the other
> *InitializeWorker() functions. I think that things got like this
> because somebody randomly made one of them pwcxt at some point, which
> was copied later on.
On second thought I definitely got this wrong (it's not subjective
after all). I didn't notice that there are actually 2 different
datatypes involved here, justifying a different naming convention for
each. In other words, the problem really was in the .h file, not in
the .c file, so I should simply fix the declaration of
ExecIncrementalSortInitializeWorker() and call it a day.
There is no reason why ExecIncrementalSortInitializeWorker() ought to
be consistent with other functions that appear in the same header
file, since (if you squint) you'll notice that the data types are also
different.
--
Peter Geoghegan
