On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:31:16PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 12:18 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Okay, I'd rather apply the same rule everywhere for consistency, then,
>> like in the attached. That's minimal, still.
>
> That's fine with me. In the interest of full disclosure, I did kind of
> notice this when reviewing the patch, though perhaps not every
> instance, and just decided that it didn't seem important enough to
> worry about. I'm totally OK with you thinking otherwise, though,
> especially since you also volunteered to do the work thus generated.
> :-)
This is fine with me as well. I only left these out because the extra
variable felt unnecessary to me for these functions.
While you are at it, would you mind fixing the misspelling of
OldestVisibleMXactId in multixact.c (as per the attached)?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
