Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oZcWO-0003fD-Vz for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 18:26:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oZcWN-0003ue-OS for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 18:26:31 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oZcWN-0003uV-F5 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 18:26:31 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oZcWK-0008Tj-Q1 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 18:26:31 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 28HIQPM7029328; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 14:26:25 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names In-reply-to: References: <3913123.1663370391@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3922750.1663372191@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3955318.1663377656@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:05:09 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29326.1663439185.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 14:26:25 -0400 Message-ID: <29327.1663439185@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > Several files from src/timezone and from src/backend/regex make use of > unnamed parameters in function declarations. It wouldn't be difficult > to fix everything and call it a day, but I wonder if there are any > special considerations here. I don't think that Henry Spencer's regex > code is considered vendored code these days (if it ever was), so that > seems clear cut. I'm less sure about the timezone code. Yeah, bringing the regex code into line with our standards is fine. I don't really see a reason not to do it with the timezone code either, as long as there aren't too many changes there. We are carrying a pretty large number of diffs from upstream already. (Which reminds me that I need to do another update pass on that code soon. Not right now, though.) regards, tom lane