I am saying that, while wraparound is perhaps not a perfect term for what's happening, it is not, in my opinion, a bad term either.
I don't want to put words into Peter's mouth, but I think that he's arguing that the term "wraparound" suggests that there is something special about the transition between xid 2^32 and xid 0 (or, well, 3). There isn't. There's only something special about the transition, as your current xid advances, between the xid that's half the xid space ahead of your current xid and the xid that's half the xid space behind the current xid, if the latter is not frozen. I don't think that's what most users think of when they hear "wraparound".
