Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > I made two more changes: > > 1. introduce newestCommitTs. Original code was using lastCommitXact to > > check that no "future" transaction is asked for, but this doesn't really > > work if a long-running transaction is committed, because asking for > > transactions with a higher Xid but which were committed earlier would > > raise an error. > > I'm kind of disappointed that, in spite of previous review comments, > this got committed with extensive use of the CommitTs naming. I think > that's confusing, but it's also something that will be awkward if we > want to add other data, such as the much-discussed commit LSN, to the > facility.
I never saw a comment that CommitTs was an unwanted name. There were some that said that committs wasn't liked because it looked like a misspelling, so we added an underscore -- stuff in lower case is commit_ts everywhere. Stuff in camel case didn't get the underscore because it didn't seem necessary. But other than that issue, the name wasn't questioned, as far as I'm aware. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
