On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:10 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@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.
