| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |
| Date: | 2016-10-20 18:15:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoatOc-mr0MjsYXSwmYo99uXFGcvRQq8FrV_x2aNBqkgwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-20 18:23:32 | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-20 18:09:31 | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |