On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 5:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > Again, I was looking at this at the level of the .h file (in this case > nodeIncrementalSort.h). It never occurred to me to consider other > *InitializeWorker() functions. > > Offhand I think that we should change all of the other > *InitializeWorker() functions. I think that things got like this > because somebody randomly made one of them pwcxt at some point, which > was copied later on.
On second thought I definitely got this wrong (it's not subjective after all). I didn't notice that there are actually 2 different datatypes involved here, justifying a different naming convention for each. In other words, the problem really was in the .h file, not in the .c file, so I should simply fix the declaration of ExecIncrementalSortInitializeWorker() and call it a day. There is no reason why ExecIncrementalSortInitializeWorker() ought to be consistent with other functions that appear in the same header file, since (if you squint) you'll notice that the data types are also different. -- Peter Geoghegan
