Hi,
On 2020-04-07 14:51:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:28 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Does that make some sense? Do you have a better suggestion for a name?
>
> I think it makes sense. I have two basic problems with the name. The
> first is that "on disk" doesn't seem to be a very clear way of
> describing what you're actually checking here, and it definitely
> doesn't refer to an existing concept which sophisticated hackers can
> be expected to understand. The second is that "may" is ambiguous in
> English: it can either mean that something is permissible ("Johnny,
> you may go to the bathroom") or that we do not have certain knowledge
> of it ("Johnny may be in the bathroom"). When it is followed by "be",
> it usually has the latter sense, although there are exceptions (e.g.
> "She may be discharged from the hospital today if she wishes, but we
> recommend that she stay for another day"). Consequently, I found that
> use of "may be" in this context wicked confusing.
Well, it *is* only a vague test :). It shouldn't ever have a false
positive, but there's plenty chance for false negatives (if wrapped
around far enough).
> So I suggest a name with "Is" or no verb, rather than one with
> "MayBe." And I suggest something else instead of "OnDisk," e.g.
> AssertTransactionIdIsInUsableRange() or
> TransactionIdIsInAllowableRange() or
> AssertTransactionIdWraparoundProtected(). I kind of like that last
> one, but YMMV.
Make sense - but they all seem to express a bit more certainty than I
think the test actually provides.
I explicitly did not want (and added a comment to that affect) have
something like TransactionIdIsInAllowableRange(), because there never
can be a safe use of its return value, as far as I can tell.
The "OnDisk" was intended to clarify that the range it verifies is
whether it'd be ok for the xid to have been found in a relation.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
