Re: assorted code cleanup

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/17 01:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers
>>
>> -           (*next_ProcessUtility_hook) (pstmt, queryString,
>> +           next_ProcessUtility_hook(pstmt, queryString,
>>                                          context, params, queryEnv,
>>                                          dest, completionTag);
>> But this... Personally I like the current grammar which allows one to
>> make the difference between a function call with something declared
>> locally and something that may be going to a custom code path. So I
>> think that you had better not update the system hooks that external
>> modules can use via shared_preload_libraries.
>
> Do you mean specifically the hook variables, or any function pointers?
> I can see your point in the above case, but for example here
>
> -       if ((*tinfo->f_lt) (o.upper, c.upper, flinfo))
> +       if (tinfo->f_lt(o.upper, c.upper, flinfo))
>
> I think there is no loss of clarity and the extra punctuation makes it
> more complicated to read.

I am referring only to hook variables here. For functions only used
internally by the backend, I agree that using a direct point to those
functions makes things better, because it is more easily possible to
make a difference with the hook paths. Keeping a different grammar for
local code and hook code allows readers to make a clearer difference
that both things have different concepts.
-- 
Michael