On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 09:53:38AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:31:16PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 12:18 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>> Okay, I'd rather apply the same rule everywhere for consistency, then,
>>> like in the attached. That's minimal, still.
>>
>> That's fine with me. In the interest of full disclosure, I did kind of
>> notice this when reviewing the patch, though perhaps not every
>> instance, and just decided that it didn't seem important enough to
>> worry about. I'm totally OK with you thinking otherwise, though,
>> especially since you also volunteered to do the work thus generated.
>> :-)
I guessed so :p
> This is fine with me as well. I only left these out because the extra
> variable felt unnecessary to me for these functions.
Okay, done, then.
> While you are at it, would you mind fixing the misspelling of
> OldestVisibleMXactId in multixact.c (as per the attached)?
Indeed. Fixed as well.
--
Michael