On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 5:27 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 17:16, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 03:17:33PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > > I'm probably not the only committer to want to run a mile when they
> > > see someone posting 17 or 26 patches in an email. So maybe "bang for
> > > buck" is a better method for getting the ball rolling here. As you
> > > know, I was recently bitten by local shadows in af7d270dd, so I do
> > > believe in the cause.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > You already fixed the shadow var introduced in master/pg16, and I sent patches
> > for the shadow vars added in pg15 (marked as such and presented as 001-008), so
> > perhaps it's okay to start with that ?
>
> Alright, I made a pass over the 0001-0008 patches.
>
...
>
> 0005. How about just "tslot". I'm not a fan of "this".
>
(I'm sure there are others like this; I just picked this one as an example)
AFAICT the offending 'slot' really should have never been declared at
all at the local scope in the first place - e.g. the other code in
this function seems happy enough with the pattern of just re-using the
function scoped 'slot'.
I understand that for this shadow patch changing the var-name is
considered the saner/safer way than tampering with the scope, but
perhaps it is still useful to include a comment when changing ones
like this?
e.g.
+ TupleTableSlot *tslot; /* TODO - Why declare this at all? Shouldn't
it just re-use the 'slot' at function scope? */
Otherwise, such knowledge will be lost, and nobody will ever know to
revisit them, which feels a bit more like *hiding* the mistake than
fixing it.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
