Hi,
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:52 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Okay. Fixed.
Attached the patch v20 that has incorporated all comments so far.
Kindly have a look at the attached patch.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
