On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:28:36AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:50:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Is "Backpatch" the best choice we have, though? It speaks by itself >> but I was thinking about something different, like "Stable". Other >> ideas or objections are welcome. My naming sense is usually not that >> good, so there's that. > > I think "Stable" is more confusing because the section should also be empty > until > the .0 is released.
Okay. > That said, what about "ABI_compatibility"? (that would also match the comment > added in wait_event_names.txt). Attached v4 making use of the > ABI_compatibility > proposal. I'm OK with that. If somebody comes up wiht a better name than that, this could always be changed again. > +# No "Backpatch" region here as code is generated automatically. > > What about "....region here as has its own C code" (that would be more > consistent > with the comment in the "header" for the file). Done that way in v4. I'd add a "as -this section- has its own C code", for clarity. This just looked a bit strange here. > It looks like WAL_SENDER_WRITE_ZZZ was also added in it (I guess for testing > purpose, so I removed it in v4). That's a good brain fade. Thanks. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
