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.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
