On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Patches still apply 1 month later.
>
> Thanks for verification!
>
>>
>> I don't really have an opinion on the variable naming. I guess they
>> only need making longer if there's going to be some confusion about
>> what they're for,
>
> makes sense, that is the reason why I have added few comments
> as well, but not sure if you are suggesting something else.
>
>> but I'm guessing it's not a blocker here.
>>
>
> I also think so, but not sure what else is required here. The basic
> idea of this rename_pgproc_variables_v2.patch is to rename
> few variables in existing similar code, so that the main patch
> group_update_clog can adapt those naming convention if required,
> other than that I have handled all review comments raised in this
> thread (mainly by Simon and Robert).
>
> Is there anything, I can do to move this forward?
Well, looking at this again, I think I'm OK to go with your names.
That doesn't seem like the thing to hold up the patch for. So I'll go
ahead and push the renaming patch now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company