On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:47 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I kept only the small comment change from that little fixup patch, > and pushed this. > > > I had proposed as alternative way in initial email and also later, > > didn't receive comment on that, so re-posting. > > > typedef bool (*AMCheckForSerializableConflictOutCallback) (void *arg); > ... > > Just due to void* callback argument aspect I didn't prefer that > > solution and felt AM performing checks and calling > > CheckForSerializableConflictOut() seems better. Please let me know > > how you feel about this. > > Yeah. We could always come back to this idea if it looks better once > we have more experience with new table AMs. > Sounds good. Thank You!
