On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be >>>> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well. >>>> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness though. > >>> Mmm, doesn't seem like that's worth doing, but I'm half tempted to merge >>> wait_slot_xmins into get_slot_xmins so you can't skip it ... > >> Let's do that please. Merging both was my first feeling when >> refactoring this test upthread. Should I send a patch? > > Sure, have at it.
And here you go. -- Michael
tap-simplify-repslot.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
