From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@postgresql.org>,
        David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: shadow variables - pg15 edition
In-reply-to: <Yv2KJiDhnqrZR7VE@paquier.xyz>
References: <20220817145434.GC26426@telsasoft.com>
 <CAHut+PsgHzoenCkOE0hQBWhUukfikpRWqk4_r=zh5EkmstkXsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yv2KJiDhnqrZR7VE@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:39:02 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2230208.1660794147.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 23:42:27 -0400
Message-ID: <2230209.1660794147@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2230209.1660794147%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> A lot of the changes proposed here update the code so as the same
> variable gets used across more code paths by removing declarations,
> but we have two variables defined because both are aimed to be used in
> a different context (see AttachPartitionEnsureIndexes() in tablecmds.c
> for example).

> Wouldn't it be a saner approach in a lot of cases to rename the
> shadowed variables (aka the ones getting removed in your patches) and
> keep them local to the code paths where we use them?

Yeah.  I do not think a patch of this sort has any business changing
the scopes of variables.  That moves it out of "cosmetic cleanup"
and into "hm, I wonder if this introduces any bugs".  Most hackers
are going to decide that they have better ways to spend their time
than doing that level of analysis for a very noncritical patch.

			regards, tom lane