On 08/19/2014 05:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-08-19 10:33:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>>> Barring objections or better ideas, I'm leaning towards
>>> XLogReadBufferForRedo.
>>
>> WFM
>
> for me too. Although we could imo strip the 'XLog' in the beginning if
> we want to make it shorter. The ForRedo is saying that pretty much.
I committed the redo-routine refactoring patch. I kept the XLog prefix
in the XLogReadBufferForRedo name; it's redundant, but all the other
similar functions in xlogutils.c use the XLog prefix so it would seem
inconsistent to not have it here.
I'll post a new version of the main patch shortly...
- Heikki
