On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:31:24AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-Jun-08, Noah Misch wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:51 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > > Not bad, but I would instead shorten the names to detach-[1234] or > > > > detach-partition-[1234]. The marginal value of the second word is low, > > > > and > > > > the third word helps even less. > > > > Better still, the numbers can change to something descriptive: > > > > detach-1 => detach-visibility > > detach-2 => detach-fk-FOO > > detach-3 => detach-incomplete > > detach-4 => detach-fk-BAR > > > > I don't grasp the difference between -2 and -4 enough to suggest concrete > > FOO > > and BAR words. > > Looking at -2, it looks like a very small subset of -4. I probably > wrote it first and failed to realize I could extend that one rather than > create -4. We could just delete it. > > We also have partition-concurrent-attach.spec; what if we make > everything a consistent set? We could have > > partition-attach > partition-detach-visibility (-1) > partition-detach-incomplete (-3) > partition-detach-fk (-4)
That works for me. I'd be fine with Peter Eisentraut's tweaks, too.
