On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:29 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That doesn't seem great to me either. I don't like this ambiguity, > > because it seems like it makes the description hard to parse in a way > > that flies in the face of what we're trying to do here, in general. > > So it seems like it might be worth fixing now, in the scope of this > > patch. > > Agreed.
Great -- pushed a fix for this just now, which included that change. > I agree it would be nice for xl_heap_lock->locking_xid to be renamed > xmax for clarity. I would suggest that if you don't intend to put it > in a separate commit, you mention it explicitly in the final commit > message. Its motivation isn't immediately obvious to the reader. What I ended up doing is making that part of a bug fix for a minor buglet I noticed in passing -- it became part of the "Fix xl_heap_lock WAL record field's data type" commit from a bit earlier on. Thanks for your help with the follow-up work. Seems like we're done with this now. -- Peter Geoghegan
