Hi,
On 2021-01-25 12:00:08 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > /*
> > > * For backward compatibility reasons this has to be stored in the wrongly
> > > * named field. Will be fixed in next major version.
> > > */
> > > return builder->was_running.was_xmax;
> >
> > We could fix that now... Andres, what did you have in mind for a proper
> > name?
>
> next_phase_at seems like it'd do the trick?
See attached patch...
