* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK. I can live with that as well. Attached are three patches. The > > pg_xlog -> pg_wal move, the pg_clog -> pg_transaction move, and the > > pg_clog -> pg_xact move. Only one survivor to be chosen among the last > > two ones. > > Committed 0001.
Glad to see that happen, finally. > To be honest, I don't really like either pg_transaction or pg_xact. > Neither name captures the fact that what we're really tracking here is > the transaction *status*. pg_xact is slightly worse because it's a > poor abbreviation for transaction, but I think the argument against > even pg_transaction is similar to the one Tom previously levied > against pg_logical - viz. "logical what?". The transaction themselves > are not stored in the directory, just the commit status. The fact > that commit status is saved is the source of the "c" in "clog". This really needs to move forward also. When it comes to the name, I tend to think of 'pg_xact' as saying "this is where we persist info we need to keep about transactions." Today that's just the commit status info, but I could imagine that there might, someday, be other things that go in there. "pg_multixact" is an example of something quite similar but does have more than just one "thing." Also, using "pg_xact" and then "pg_subxact" and "pg_multixact" bring them all under one consistent naming scheme. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature