On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:02:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@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 +
