Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > 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.
I found one email where you said you didn't like committs and preferred commit_timestamp instead. I don't see how making that change would have made you happy wrt the concern you just expressed. -- 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
