On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:29 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That doesn't seem great to me either. I don't like this ambiguity,
> > because it seems like it makes the description hard to parse in a way
> > that flies in the face of what we're trying to do here, in general.
> > So it seems like it might be worth fixing now, in the scope of this
> > patch.
>
> Agreed.
Great -- pushed a fix for this just now, which included that change.
> I agree it would be nice for xl_heap_lock->locking_xid to be renamed
> xmax for clarity. I would suggest that if you don't intend to put it
> in a separate commit, you mention it explicitly in the final commit
> message. Its motivation isn't immediately obvious to the reader.
What I ended up doing is making that part of a bug fix for a minor
buglet I noticed in passing -- it became part of the "Fix xl_heap_lock
WAL record field's data type" commit from a bit earlier on.
Thanks for your help with the follow-up work. Seems like we're done
with this now.
--
Peter Geoghegan
