On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:28:36AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:50:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Is "Backpatch" the best choice we have, though? It speaks by itself
>> but I was thinking about something different, like "Stable". Other
>> ideas or objections are welcome. My naming sense is usually not that
>> good, so there's that.
>
> I think "Stable" is more confusing because the section should also be empty until
> the .0 is released.
Okay.
> That said, what about "ABI_compatibility"? (that would also match the comment
> added in wait_event_names.txt). Attached v4 making use of the ABI_compatibility
> proposal.
I'm OK with that. If somebody comes up wiht a better name than that,
this could always be changed again.
> +# No "Backpatch" region here as code is generated automatically.
>
> What about "....region here as has its own C code" (that would be more consistent
> with the comment in the "header" for the file). Done that way in v4.
I'd add a "as -this section- has its own C code", for clarity. This
just looked a bit strange here.
> It looks like WAL_SENDER_WRITE_ZZZ was also added in it (I guess for testing
> purpose, so I removed it in v4).
That's a good brain fade. Thanks.
--
Michael