On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:44 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:15 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Attached the updated patch v19.
> > >
> > > + maybe_delay_apply(TransactionId xid, TimestampTz finish_ts)
> > >
> > > I look this spelling strange. How about maybe_apply_delay()?
> > >
> >
> > +1.
>
> It depends on how you read it. I read it like this:
>
> maybe_delay_apply === means "maybe delay [the] apply"
> (which is exactly what the function does)
>
> versus
>
> maybe_apply_delay === means "maybe [the] apply [needs a] delay"
> (which is also correct, but it seemed a more awkward way to say it IMO)
>
This matches more with GUC and all other usages of variables in the
patch. So, I still prefer the second one.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
