At Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:22:19 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote in > 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.
I read it as "maybe apply [the] delay [to something suggested by the context]". If we go the first way, I will name it as "maybe_delay_apply_change" or something that has an extra word. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
