On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Patches still apply 1 month later. > > Thanks for verification! > >> >> I don't really have an opinion on the variable naming. I guess they >> only need making longer if there's going to be some confusion about >> what they're for, > > makes sense, that is the reason why I have added few comments > as well, but not sure if you are suggesting something else. > >> but I'm guessing it's not a blocker here. >> > > I also think so, but not sure what else is required here. The basic > idea of this rename_pgproc_variables_v2.patch is to rename > few variables in existing similar code, so that the main patch > group_update_clog can adapt those naming convention if required, > other than that I have handled all review comments raised in this > thread (mainly by Simon and Robert). > > Is there anything, I can do to move this forward?
Well, looking at this again, I think I'm OK to go with your names. That doesn't seem like the thing to hold up the patch for. So I'll go ahead and push the renaming patch now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
