Subject: Re: remove some STATUS_* symbols
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
References: <a6f91ead-0ce4-2a34-062b-7ab9813ea308@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200106063159.GQ3598@paquier.xyz>
 <eb176922-2b1f-86d1-9ed4-e2c60a39b956@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200110052332.GI1702@paquier.xyz>
 <4edc8a92-373c-1a4d-eded-6b342f0890dc@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200116055001.GH3117@paquier.xyz>
 <CA+TgmobAKj_skqbmeTcG7kXT5hXF1MkCofu5kqrhAm=3ohVh9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3a4550d0-e899-b477-fd43-0745d18a4fc1@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200612073045.GG3362@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <a79bf469-e33d-7c7c-a348-c57f13a9fcc7@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:18:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200612073045.GG3362@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-06-12 09:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:55:59PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2020-01-16 13:56, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> IMHO, custom enums for each particular case would be a big improvement
>>> over supposedly-generic STATUS codes. It makes it clearer which values
>>> are possible in each code path, and it comes out nicer in the
>>> debugger, too.
>>
>> Given this feedback, I would like to re-propose the original patch, attached
>> again here.
>>
>> After this, the use of the remaining STATUS_* symbols will be contained to
>> the frontend and backend libpq code, so it'll be more coherent.
> 
> I am still in a so-so state regarding this patch, but I find the
> debugger argument a good one.  And please don't consider me as a
> blocker.

Okay, I have committed it.

>> Add a separate enum for use in the locking APIs, which were the only
>> user.
> 
>> +typedef enum
>> +{
>> +	PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK,
>> +	PROC_WAIT_STATUS_WAITING,
>> +	PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERROR,
>> +} ProcWaitStatus;
> 
> ProcWaitStatus, and more particularly PROC_WAIT_STATUS_WAITING are
> strange names (the latter refers to "wait" twice).  What do you think
> about renaming the enum to ProcStatus and the flags to PROC_STATUS_*?

I see your point, but I don't think that's better.  That would just 
invite someone else to use it for other process-related status things. 
We typically name enum constants like the type followed by a suffix. 
The fact that the suffix is similar to the prefix here is more of a 
coincidence.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services