Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
>>> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well.
>>> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness though.
>> Mmm, doesn't seem like that's worth doing, but I'm half tempted to merge
>> wait_slot_xmins into get_slot_xmins so you can't skip it ...
> Let's do that please. Merging both was my first feeling when
> refactoring this test upthread. Should I send a patch?
Sure, have at it.
regards, tom lane