On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:10 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, can we find a more descriptive name for this mechanism? What
> > about calling it the "uncommitted enum table"? See attached.
>
> Thanks for picking this one up again!
>
> Agreed, that's a much better choice.
>
> The term itself is a bit of a mouthful, but it does describe what it
> is in a much more clear way than what the old term did anyway.
>
> Maybe consider just calling it "uncomitted enums", which would as a
> bonus have it not end up talking about uncommittedenumtablespace which
> gets hits on searches for tablespace.. Though I'm not sure that's
> important.
>
> I'm +1 to the change with or without that adjustment.
Cool. I went with your suggestion.
> As for the code, I note that:
> + /* Set up the enum table if not already done in this transaction */
>
> forgets to say it's *uncomitted* enum table -- which is the important
> part of I believe.
Fixed.
> And
> + * Test if the given enum value is in the table of blocked enums.
>
> should probably talk about uncommitted rather than blocked?
Fixed.
And pushed.
