On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:24 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 7:37 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-Sep-27, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > > 3. get_local_synced_slot_names
> > >
> > > + for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
> > > + {
> > > + ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
> > > +
> > > + /* Check if it is logical synchronized slot */
> > > + if (s->in_use && SlotIsLogical(s) && s->data.synced)
> > > + {
> > > + for (int j = 0; j < MySlotSyncWorker->dbcount; j++)
> > > + {
> > >
> > > Loop variables are not declared in the common PG code way.
> >
> > Note that since we added C99 as a mandatory requirement for compilers in
> > commit d9dd406fe281, we've been using declarations in loop initializers
> > (see 143290efd079). We have almost 500 occurrences of this already.
> > Older code, obviously, does not use them, but that's no reason not to
> > introduce them in new code. I think they make the code a bit leaner, so
> > I suggest to use these liberally.
> >
>
> I also prefer the C99 style, but I had misunderstood there was still a
> convention to keep using the old style for code consistency (e.g. many
> new patches I see still seem to use the old style).
>
> Thanks for confirming that C99 loop variables are fine for any new code.
>
> @Shveta/Ajin - please ignore/revert all my old review comments about this
> point.
>
Sure, reverted all such changes in v22. Now we have declarations in
loop initializers.
thanks
Shveta
