On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:02:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:29:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> I don't dispute the fact that you tend to think of it that way, but I > >> think it's a real stretch to say that "pg_xact" is a clear name from > >> the point of view of the uninitiated. Now, maybe the point is to be a > >> little bit deliberately unclear, but "xact" for "transaction" is not a > >> lot better than "xlog" for "write-ahead log". It's just arbitrary > >> abbreviations we made up and you either know what they mean or you > >> don't. We could call it "pg_xkcd" and we wouldn't be removing much in > >> the way of clarity. > > > > What is your suggestion for a name? If you have none, I suggest we use > > "pg_xact". > > I'm not sure. pg_transaction_status would be clear, but it's long. > Is pg_xact actually better than pg_clog?
Uh, yeah, no "log". Wasn't that the point? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers