On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:42 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > On 2020-Sep-10, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:03 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > > > > The comments already say what you said in the second suggestion:"The > > > caller must rely on timestamp stored in *ts iff the function returns > > > true.". Read iff "as if and only if" > > > > I think "must" should be "may" there, if we're nitpicking. > > > > Here, we want to say that "caller can rely on *ts only if the function > returns true". If we replace 'must' with 'may' then it seems to me we > are trying to say that caller can ignore the timestamp value, if so, > why at first place caller has called this function. > This is true, but that should really be the decision of the caller, not of the function. But again, that's extremely nitpicky, so it doesn't really matter :) And +1 on the push you did, and the decision not to backpatch it since there haven't been any reports. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
