Hello Dilip,
> - for (i = 0; i < nbranches * scale; i++)
> + for (int i = 0; i < nbranches * scale; i++)
> ...
> - for (i = 0; i < ntellers * scale; i++)
> + for (int i = 0; i < ntellers * scale; i++)
> {
>
> I haven't read the complete patch. But, I have noticed that many
> places you changed the variable declaration from c to c++ style (i.e
> moved the declaration in the for loop). IMHO, generally in PG, we
> don't follow this convention. Is there any specific reason to do
> this?
There are many places where it is used now in pg (120 occurrences in
master, 7 in pgbench). I had a bug recently because of a stupidly reused
index variable, so I tend to use this now it is admissible, moreover here
I'm actually doing a refactoring patch, so it seems ok to include that.
--
Fabien.
