On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:12 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:04 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > Looks good to me in general > > I don't see the reasoning behind changing the name from msg_autovacuum to msg_autovacuum_start anywhere, perhaps I missed a part of the discussion? Was that a change intended to be part of it?
That wasn't discussed, I should have mentioned it sorry. I just changed it for consistency while at it, as it seemed a little bit ambiguous or error prone:
As the member of the union weren't used anywhere, I thought it's ok to rename it now they're used. I'm not strongly attached to this change, so feel free to discard it.
Yeah, that does make sense. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some discussion about it.