On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.
That's a reasonable point, but I still don't really like the name
"fastpath", because it's not faster, and it's not a path. It's just
smaller. How about xl_xact_commit_simple or xl_xact_commit_compact or
something like that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
