From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
Cc: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?) |
Date: | 2022-09-28 04:07:43 |
Message-ID: | 20220928.130743.2011022650059270168.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:09:39 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:11:54PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 2:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> If this is still unacceptable, I propose to change the comment. (I
> >> found that the previous patch forgets about do_pg_backup_stop())
> >>
> >> - * It fills in backup_state with the information required for the backup,
> >> + * It fills in the parameter "state" with the information required for the backup,
> >
> > +1. There's another place that uses backup_state in the comments. I
> > modified that as well. Please see the attached patch.
>
> Thanks, fixed the comments. I have let the variable names as they are
> now in the code, as both are backup-related code paths so it is IMO
> clear that the state is linked to a backup.
Thanks! I'm fine with that.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-09-28 04:10:04 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-09-28 03:52:56 | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |