On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Is pg_xact actually better than pg_clog? > > Yes, because it doesn't contain the three letters "log".
I figured somebody was going to say that. > We have the two precedents "pg_subtrans" and "pg_multixact", so > unless we want to get into renaming those too, I think "pg_trans" > and "pg_xact" are really the only options worth considering. > > Personally I'd go for "pg_trans", but it's only a weak preference. Heaven forfend we actually use enough characters to make it self-documenting. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers