Re: Snapbuild woes followup

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:18 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-01-25 12:00:08 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >   /*
> > > >    * For backward compatibility reasons this has to be stored in the wrongly
> > > >    * named field.  Will be fixed in next major version.
> > > >    */
> > > >   return builder->was_running.was_xmax;
> > >
> > > We could fix that now... Andres, what did you have in mind for a proper
> > > name?
> >
> > next_phase_at seems like it'd do the trick?
>

The new proposed name sounds good to me.

> See attached patch...

LGTM.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.