At Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:09:39 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:11:54PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 2:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If this is still unacceptable, I propose to change the comment. (I
> >> found that the previous patch forgets about do_pg_backup_stop())
> >>
> >> - * It fills in backup_state with the information required for the backup,
> >> + * It fills in the parameter "state" with the information required for the backup,
> >
> > +1. There's another place that uses backup_state in the comments. I
> > modified that as well. Please see the attached patch.
>
> Thanks, fixed the comments. I have let the variable names as they are
> now in the code, as both are backup-related code paths so it is IMO
> clear that the state is linked to a backup.
Thanks! I'm fine with that.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center