Hi,
On 2021-01-29 14:04:47 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:18 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-01-25 12:00:08 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * For backward compatibility reasons this has to be stored in the wrongly
> > > > > * named field. Will be fixed in next major version.
> > > > > */
> > > > > return builder->was_running.was_xmax;
> > > >
> > > > We could fix that now... Andres, what did you have in mind for a proper
> > > > name?
> > >
> > > next_phase_at seems like it'd do the trick?
> >
>
> The new proposed name sounds good to me.
And pushed.
> > See attached patch...
>
> LGTM.
Thanks for looking over - should have added your name to reviewed-by,
sorry...
Greetings,
Andres Freund