Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Seki, Eiji
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags
Date
Msg-id A11BD0E1A40FAC479D740CEFA373E203396A5685@g01jpexmbkw05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/14/17 3:13 AM, Seki, Eiji wrote:
> >   +extern TransactionId GetOldestXmin(Relation rel, uint8 
> > ignoreFlags);
> 
> My impression is that most other places that do this sort of thing just call the argument 'flags', so as not to "lock
in"a single idea of what the flags are for. I can't readily think of another use for flags in GetOldestXmin, but ISTM
it'sbetter to just go with "flags" instead of "ignoreFlags".
 

Thanks. I also think "flags" is better. I will rename it.

But I wonder if I should rename the defined flag names, IGNORE_A_FLAG_XXX and IGNORE_FLAGS_XXX because they include
"IGNORE"in their name. I'm concerned GetOldestXmin users are difficult to know the meaning if they have general names,
andgeneral names will conflict to other definitions. Would you let me know if you have any idea?
 

--
Regards,
Eiji Seki
Fujitsu



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Sum aggregate calculation for single precsion real
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.