On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:18 AM Andres Freund <and...@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.
