On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:44 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:15 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Attached the updated patch v19. > > > > > > + maybe_delay_apply(TransactionId xid, TimestampTz finish_ts) > > > > > > I look this spelling strange. How about maybe_apply_delay()? > > > > > > > +1. > > It depends on how you read it. I read it like this: > > maybe_delay_apply === means "maybe delay [the] apply" > (which is exactly what the function does) > > versus > > maybe_apply_delay === means "maybe [the] apply [needs a] delay" > (which is also correct, but it seemed a more awkward way to say it IMO) >
This matches more with GUC and all other usages of variables in the patch. So, I still prefer the second one. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
