On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:14 PM Drouvot, Bertrand <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand > > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > minor nitpick: > > + > > + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */ > > + /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > > Do we need to repeat fall through twice in different ways? > > > > Do you mean, you'd prefer what was done in v52/0002? >
No, I was thinking that instead of two comments, we need one here. But, now thinking about it, do we really need to fall through in this case, if so why? Shouldn't this case be handled after PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_DATABASE? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
