On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 01/11/14 12:19, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> thanks for review. >> >> On 01/11/14 05:45, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>> Now here are a couple of comments at code level, this code seems not >>> enough baked for a commit: >>> 1) The following renaming should be done: >>> - pg_get_transaction_committime to pg_get_transaction_commit_time >>> - pg_get_transaction_extradata to pg_get_transaction_extra_data >>> - pg_get_transaction_committime_data to >>> pg_get_transaction_commit_time_data >>> - pg_get_latest_transaction_committime_data to >>> pg_get_latest_transaction_commit_time_data >>> >> >> Makes sense. >> >> > On second thought, maybe those should be pg_get_transaction_committs, > pg_get_transaction_committs_data, etc. > For me the commit time thing feels problematic in the way I perceive it - > I see commit time as a point in time, where I see commit timestamp (or > committs for short) as something that can recorded. So I would prefer to > stick with commit timestamp/committs. Hehe, I got exactly the opposite impression while reading the patch, but let's rely on your judgement for the namings. I am not the one writing this code. -- Michael
