On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
