On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 9:43 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> writes: > > ISTM Andres tend to use *es_epq_active* in a boolean way, > > like `if (es_epq_active) then`, but in the code base, all its usages > > follow pattern `if (es_epq_active == NULL) then`, so I propose to > > change es_epq_active to es_epqstate. > > While I didn't especially love "es_epq_active" at the time, > I don't see that "es_epqstate" is much of an improvement: > it's an extremely generic name that conveys little information. > And renaming it now, years later, seems to add little except > back-patching hazards. So I'd vote for leaving it alone. > > regards, tom lane
Ok, let's keep it as is, thanks for the explanation. -- Regards Junwang Zhao
