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.
> See attached patch...
LGTM.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.