On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
Fair point. I'm still not sure we got this one right, but I don't know that I want to spend more time wrangling about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
