On 22.12.2014 17:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 22.12.2014 07:36, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> On 22.12.2014 00:28, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >>>> (8) Also, I think it's not necessary to define function prototypes for >>>> executeStatement2 and is_table_exists. It certainly is not >>>> consistent with the other functions defined in pgbench.c (e.g. >>>> there's no prototype for executeStatement). Just delete the two >>>> prototypes and move is_table_exists before executeStatement2. >>> >>> I think not having static function prototypes is not a good >>> custom. See other source code in PostgreSQL. >> >> Yes, but apparently pgbench.c does not do that. It's strange to have >> prototypes for just two of many functions in the file. > > Whenever a function is defined before its first use, a prototype is > not mandatory, so we tend to omit them, but I'm pretty sure there are > cases where we add them anyway. I my opinion, rearranging code so > that called functions appear first just to avoid the prototype is not > a very good way to organize things, though. I haven't looked at this > patch so I don't know whether this is what's being done here.
I'm not objecting to prototypes in general, but I believe the principle is to respect how the existing code is written. There are almost no other prototypes in pgbench.c - e.g. there are no prototypes for executeStatement(), init() etc. so adding the prototypes in this patch seems inconsistent. But maybe that's nitpicking. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers