Re: pgbench -f and vacuum

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