On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>> With regards to the naming, I think it would be better if we kept
>>> XLOG_XACT_COMMIT record exactly as it is now, and make the second
>>> record an entirely new record called XLOG_XACT_COMMIT_FASTPATH. That
>>> way we retain backwards compatibility.
>
>> I liked your previous suggestion of commit and commit-with-info
>> better. There's nothing particularly fast about this; it's just less
>> info. So to speak.
>
> Yes. There is no need to preserve backwards compatibility here, so
> let's just design the records in a way that makes sense on its own.
The only difference I'm proposing is the naming. It was foolish of me
to propose that the data structure that is exactly the same should
have a different name, yet the new structure should have the same name
as the previous version. That will lead to confusion to no benefit. My
second suggestion makes sense on its own, for no other reason.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
