On 28/11/2025 10:16, Chao Li wrote:
Hi Hackers,
While reviewing [1], it makes me recall an experience where I had a
patch ready locally, but CommitFest CI failed with a shadows-variable
warning. Now I understand that -Wall doesn't by default enable -Wshadows
with some compilers like clang.
I did a clean build with manually enabling -Wshadow and
surprisingly found there are a lot of such warnings in the current code
base, roughly ~200 occurrences.
As there are too many, I plan to fix them all in 3-4 rounds. For round 1
patch, I'd see any objection, then decide if to proceed more rounds.
I don't know if we've agreed on a goal of getting rid of all shadowing,
it's a lot of code churn. I agree shadowing is often confusing and
error-prone, so maybe it's worth it.
On the patch itself:
In some of the cases, I think we should rename the global / outer-scoped
variable instead of the local variable. For example, it's pretty insane
that we apparently have a global variable called 'days'. :-)
Let's think a little harder about the new names. For example:
@@ -1274,8 +1274,8 @@ execute_extension_script(Oid extensionOid,
ExtensionControlFile *control,
Datum old = t_sql;
char *reqextname = (char *) lfirst(lc);
Oid reqschema = lfirst_oid(lc2);
- char *schemaName = get_namespace_name(reqschema);
- const char *qSchemaName = quote_identifier(schemaName);
+ char *schemaname = get_namespace_name(reqschema);
+ const char *qSchemaName = quote_identifier(schemaname);
char *repltoken;
repltoken = psprintf("@extschema:%s@", reqextname);
Having two local variables that only differ in case is also confusing.
We're using the 'req*' prefix here for the other variables, so I think
e.g. 'reqSchemaName' would be a good name here.
(I didn't go through the whole patch, these were just a few things that
caught my eye at quick glance)
- Heikki
