From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:49:51 -0400
Message-ID: <3922750.1663372191@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-WzmxBXZAE6eyAm1XyPp6X7epCwih5qBupTxQOc6Hqp48fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2-WznJt9CMM9KJTMjJh_zbL5hD9oX44qdJ4aqZtjFi-zA3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<3913123.1663370391@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAH2-WzmxBXZAE6eyAm1XyPp6X7epCwih5qBupTxQOc6Hqp48fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> It's possible to configure the clang-tidy tooling to tolerate various
> inconsistencies, below some kind of threshold -- it is totally
> customizable. But I think that a strict, simple rule is the way to go
> here.
Agreed; I see no need to tolerate any inconsistency.
> (Though without creating busy work for committers that don't
> want to use clang-tidy all the time.)
Yeah. I'd be inclined to handle it about like cpluspluscheck:
provide a script that people can run from time to time, but
don't insist that it's a commit-blocker. (I wouldn't be unhappy
to see the cfbot include this in its compiler warnings suite,
though, once we get rid of the existing instances.)
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pg@bowt.ie, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names
In-Reply-To: <3922750.1663372191@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox