On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 2:01 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > That's kind of annoying --- seems to put a serious crimp in any plans > to check this mechanically.
I don't see why it should make a huge difference. Granted we can't really rely on the "readability-named-parameter" check in the way we'd hoped, but AFAICT we can rely on the "readability-inconsistent-declaration-parameter-name" check to work everywhere. The latter check is far more important in practice, I think, because people don't tend to omit parameter names very often. One further caveat here is that I seem to need to set "IgnoreMacros: false" to get perfect results for the "inconsistent" check when the C preprocessor is involved, as it often is (e.g., with TransactionId params). Even if some other limitations become apparent, we can probably afford to allow some false negatives. I don't see any evidence of that so far, barring this issue with unnamed parameter checking. -- Peter Geoghegan
