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
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
	message dated "Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:36:50 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3922749.1663372191.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:49:51 -0400
Message-ID: <3922750.1663372191@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3922750.1663372191%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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