On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:19:35PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Yeah, that's exactly why I didn't do what Michael proposes. If we're > going to go to this trouble to avoid changing the layout of a PGPROC, > we must be doing that on the theory that extension code cares about > delayChkpt. And if that is so, it seems reasonable to suppose that it > might also want to call the associated functions.
Compatibility does not strike me as a problem with two static inline functions used as wrappers of their common logic. > Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that this mattered, because I > wouldn't have guessed that any non-core code cared about delayChkpt. > But I would have been wrong. That's a minor point. If you wish to keep this code as you are proposing, that's fine as well by me. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
