Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:20:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
    Marina Polyakova <m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru>,
    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
    pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
    Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP    aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock
 errors
In-Reply-To: <20210625200113.b411821946a08b5f7d6b8f73@sraoss.co.jp>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2106261015070.482873@pseudo>
References: <20181116195952.nq4ak4r7cbzvoher@alvherre.pgsql>
 <f900fd87b5c58a0ff71c1f08f3c91e5f@postgrespro.ru>
 <CA+hUKGKBTdhanHJd4Y+opANz4Fs+VeOAbFG7TsM=tK+EBWKP4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003092038190.7227@pseudo>
 <CA+hUKGJ=tv00eph4ve4XTgbyRo8dFWT=v-cEPxBxratWZpd5hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210524112910.444fbfdfbff747bd3b9720ee@sraoss.co.jp>
 <20210622235459.4b2e38e268488014226b3262@sraoss.co.jp>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2106230914180.1117163@pseudo>
 <20210625200113.b411821946a08b5f7d6b8f73@sraoss.co.jp>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="2056645051-674257208-1624695611=:482873"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2106261015070.482873%40pseudo>
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--2056645051-674257208-1624695611=:482873
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP; format=flowed


Hello Yugo-san,

>> I'm wondering whether we could use "vars" instead of "variables" as a
>> struct field name and function parameter name, so that is is shorter and
>> more distinct from the type name "Variables". What do you think?
>
> The struct "Variables" has a field named "vars" which is an array of
> "Variable" type. I guess this is a reason why "variables" is used instead
> of "vars" as a name of "Variables" type variable so that we could know
> a variable's type is Variable or Variables.  Also, in order to refer to
> the field, we would use
>
> vars->vars[vars->nvars]
>
> and there are nested "vars". Could this make a codereader confused?

Hmmm… Probably. Let's keep "variables" then.

-- 
Fabien.
--2056645051-674257208-1624695611=:482873--