On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:19:35PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, that's exactly why I didn't do what Michael proposes. If we're
> going to go to this trouble to avoid changing the layout of a PGPROC,
> we must be doing that on the theory that extension code cares about
> delayChkpt. And if that is so, it seems reasonable to suppose that it
> might also want to call the associated functions.
Compatibility does not strike me as a problem with two static inline
functions used as wrappers of their common logic.
> Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that this mattered, because I
> wouldn't have guessed that any non-core code cared about delayChkpt.
> But I would have been wrong.
That's a minor point. If you wish to keep this code as you are
proposing, that's fine as well by me.
--
Michael
