On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
> >Okay -- we need to always do the cleanup, 'cuz if we don't we could
> >leave stray records around the merge info index. Which don't actively
> >harm anything, but perhaps should be deleted...
> >The API probably shouldn't be named index_merge_info(), then.
> >update_merge_info() would be better, but is already taken. Should we
> >merge the two routines into a single routine, or rename the existing
> >update_merge_info() function to something more specific?
> Find the attached patch.
I've committed a variation of this in r20923 which uses slightly less
SQL-y function names.
I take it you didn't like the idea of merging the merge info index
entry point function you added and the function which loops over any
merge info for a transaction?
Received on Mon Jul 31 23:34:50 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored